Frederique Chabaud's Concept of Intercultural Dialogue - a response by Hatto Fischer - Ποιειν Και Πραττειν

Frederique Chabaud's Concept of Intercultural Dialogue - a response by Hatto Fischer

Introduction

The letter by Frederique Chabaud of 2002
'Intercultural Dialogue' - a problematic concept
The making of the Platform for Intercultural Europe
The Middle East (2002 - 2010)
Ontology of silence
Human kindness and reason
The political-philosophical Reflections
The situation in 2010
Conclusion

Introduction

Already back in 2002, when Frederique Chabaud was coordinator of EFAH, she made known her personal view in a letter that ‘intercultural dialogue would end in failure’. [1] She felt that the necessity of dialogue is only stressed when there is a lack of understanding how things work. Clearly she was of the opinion that when there needs to be taken a stand, just talking is not enough.

Her letter was written in view of the failed peace process in the Middle East around that time. Consequently she appraised in that context certain efforts as being futile. To this she added a note of scepticism due to observations she had made while attending in Brussels a conference meant to advocate a new kind of diplomacy based on 'intercultural dialogue'. She called that an operation with half-truths i.e. pretending to integrate another discourse when in fact it was only about subsuming everything under just one umbrella i.e. 'intercultural dialogue'.

At times insights expressed in the form of a personal letter can highlight things much better than what otherwise a brilliant public speech might be able to achieve. A personal note can reflect engagement and more important a personal wisdom. It shows especially in the way things are perceived, understood and appraised. Kant and Adorno called it ‘practical judgment’ which cannot be taught. It must be given if man is to judge his own actions. This he can do by being able to anticipate the consequences. Frederique Chabaud shows in the form of a letter that she has this incredible ability. Her practical judgement can be characterised best in the way she picks up information and transforms it into a non polemical description of reality before passing it on.

Since her understanding of the concept of 'international dialogue' is based on her judgement what works, what not, she becomes critical of anyone who pretends to know what he is talking about but shows at the same time a lack of understanding as to what works. At the same time, it is of interest that ‘silence’ plays a key role in her assessment of things. The latter accounts for what can be talked about, what not. This is also how she comes to judge if a particular action is futile or not. Her position takes primarily into consideration how people can be addressed without 'silencing' them and what lies beyond language.

Apart from her letter, it is clear not only the Middle East, but Europe and the Western World altogether have made their own bitter experiences of war. Aside from many factors contributing, the ending of public debate signals every time the start of yet another war. That is why talking is better insofar staying in contact gives a chance to find some solutions. By contrast violent actions are usually precipitated by a break-down in dialogue. With it goes a loss of trust and intensification of fear. It ends the possibility of civil conduct as was the case with former Yugoslavia. There 'ethnic assertiveness' erupted in violence. It was horrific. It included the siege of Sarajevo. But nothing was really terminated by the bombardment of Kosovo in 1999 for it meant really going to war all over again. It was for the first time after 1945 a clear break of the promise 'never again war'. It underlined already then in Europe the failure of intercultural dialogue as tool of diplomacy.

Despite this failure the European Commission proceeded to adopt some years after 2002 the concept of intercultural dialogue. It became an integral part of the EU agenda for culture. Therefore the letter by Frederique Chabaud about 'intercultural dialogue' can be taken as an indication as to what still awaits the EU. So far all the failures which go with such a concept have not been faced. Things are glossed over especially by those who have become so called experts or spokespersons of culture. Rightly so she doubted that ‘intercultural dialogue’ could really integrate different discourses while remaining attentive to real differences. The weak position of the EU in the Middle East to date but also the lack of a dialogue with civil society despite efforts to structure such a dialogue by creating three Cultural Platforms underlines only this failure further. Yet it is not taken up by the responsible bodies and people as if no one listens. Instead EU projects have been reduced to providing merely the proof how successful is EU cultural policy. At the same time criticism of the concept of 'intercultural dialogue', including how the concept is used to legitimize further actions of the EU in the cultural fields, has been if not directly silenced, then sidelined or systematically ignored. As it stands nothing can be attested what works, what not.

The thoughts of Frederique Chabaud stand apart from all of this as she came to realize already back in 2002 how difficult it would be to alter the course of events in the Middle East. Equally she recognized that it would be difficult to challenge the EU in the way issues are handled, the concept of 'international dialogue' but one example.

Her letter is of such a profound nature. She expresses herself in a way which goes well beyond the year in which that letter was written. The formulations she uses reveal an amazing clarity of mind. Her thoughts may be even of greater importance today when there are efforts under way to restart the peace process in the Middle East.

Unfortunately Europe is marked in 2010 by a terrible silence. Too much is assumed or taken for granted at EU level, while important dialogues have never started or else are cut off before they could develop an interesting challenge to institutional practices of the EU. And that what could make a real difference goes unnoticed or is not recognized sufficiently.

Since Frederique Chabaud participated in the European Convention created to draft the EU Constitutional Treaty and which was not ratified by France and Holland in 2005, it is significant that Habermas contradicts Merkel who wishes after that set-back to celebrate the Lisbon Treaty as a way forward. The philosopher points out in his book 'Ach Europe' (a quote from Enzensberger's poem) that the treaty did nothing to bridge the enormous democratic gap which exists between EU institutions and citizens. At the same time, he observes that there is missing a kind of world governance of the same spirit that created the United Nations after 1945. The latter has become completely dysfunctional due to corruption, inefficiency and wars. There is this need to deal with local and global issues while world governance and the European Union need an alternative to an elite running all affairs. Unfortunately Habermas holds onto that concept of elite.

About the discourse they practice, Michael D. Higgins calls it a 'sick' one. They do not engage in the dialogue between cultures nor do they show much political courage. They hardly name directly hot issues such as violations of Human Rights. Above all they do not develop a cultural policy which promotes participatory forms so that democracy can be lived. The EU could act like a mediator between the various levels but fails to connect local, regional and world level in a way that would allow citizens set the European agenda. Significant is that around the time when she wrote that letter, Frederique Chabaud tried through her contributions to the European Convention to upgrade the competence of culture. The aim was to put culture at the same level as the environment which enjoys first competence at EU level. Till today culture has only secondary competence. It can be assumed that this too influenced her to write what she did in her appraisal of intercultural dialogue as a viable concept or not.

When reviewing this time period 2002 - 2010 to see what has been done in the name of the EU, then the democratic deficit and the secondary treatment of culture is definitely not a way forward. Taking her letter as measure of time, the difficulties to stay in contact with people through a dialogue furthering reason as basis of governance have intensified, not become less. Above all what is missing in the EU debate is a similar clarity as found in her letter. More should be done to follow up her perception as to what works, what not. Pertaining to 'intercultural dialogue' as tool of EU foreign policy and as orientation towards an 'intercultural Europe', she warned already in 2002 that the concept will merely gloss over everything since an operation based on half-truths.

Such an operation goes hand in hand with current efforts by the EU to develop a communication strategy with the aim not to further dialogue, but to present solely the President of the EU Commission as if the President of the entire European Union. More and more this communication strategy begins to resemble former propaganda techniques used by Communist regimes of the past. The strategy was to focus on the leader and some hand picked heroes. They were selected to exemplify norms to be fulfilled while the rest hovers in silence. The tasks ahead are not really discussed and a dialogue with especially civil society does not take place despite all claims by the EU Commission after having installed three Platforms, including the one for Intercultural Europe. No wonder the European Union finds itself in 2010 to be without any cultural dimension. The adopted communication strategy does not rely on 'dialogue' and 'participation' to articulate its strategic vision for 2020. Communication especially of highly symbolic nature takes place above the heads of everyone. It leaves those aside who wish to verify what can be known about reality through dialogue, the most responsible form if wishing to know what one is talking about. Having said that the criticism by Frederique Chabaud should be heeded even more.

To remind, dialogue existed in Europe long before the creation of the European Union. It was a way to go from the personal level to the political and from there to the philosophical and back to the practical. These multi-levels are missing today. Knowledge has been flattened out. Once the European Commission adapts to a style of communication based on over simplification as if complexity can be handled in such a way, the loss of a human language becomes most evident. Rightly so Frederique Chabaud points out that 'intercultural dialogue' has no resemblance with this former notion of dialogue known to artists discussing with writers like Albert Camus the importance of remaining friends even if driven by the necessity of war into resistance. That famous letter by Albert Camus to his 'German friends' reveals that compassion for humanity while confronting at the same time a moral obligation to uphold freedom. All the more is unexplainable why this writer from Algiers went silent when the prospects of avoiding war had been reduced by the colonial system to ‘zero’? Ronald Aronson in his book about the extraordinary friendship between Camus and Sartre comes to the conclusion that all subsequent political developments suffer still today the consequence of missing that dialogue between those two. The ending of that friendship contributed to an ever growing silence in Europe for lost seems to be a political discussion with a truly human, equally ethical dimension.

The prevailing silence of many citizens in Europe can be explained insofar as they are wondering in which direction the EU is heading in face of the financial and debt crisis. The most recent Lisbon treaty leaves this continent without any chance to improve upon democratic practice and therefore EU institutions do not really enjoy full legitimacy in terms of democracy. Consequently the EU does not play as well any significant role at international level. Europe has not been able to advance the cause of peace either in the Middle East or throughout the rest of the world. This is mainly because Europe tagged not merely along with whatever the United States did after 911 but by entering the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, European companies have become engaged in weapons trade and signed up to ambiguous agreements despite better knowledge what had brought about the two world wars. Altogether the EU institutions underline a highly questionable approach to things. An explanation for this dismal state of affairs may well be what Frederique Chabaud's letter attests to, namely that Europe engages in a pseudo-dialogue while not really understanding its position in the world nor the people in the name of which it seeks to legitimize the actions undertaken.

A response written in 2010

1. The letter of 2002

After having written a lot about the Middle East, including two Newsletters reflecting upon that region of the world as if ‘biotopes of violence’, and after a failure to continue corresponding with a woman in Jerusalem who could no longer take any further doubts as how to deal with the situation, and after some other correspondences with Isaac had failed to convince him as supporter of Israel to take another look, it was time to make available this material to Frederique Chabaud. [2] Her first and only response came unexpectedly but it nearly silenced all my efforts to understand first of all the situation.

But what to do, asks Frederique Chabaud in her letter of 2002, if a specific "generosity (does not help) to come to terms with reason (Erasmus) and to reach persons in the wish to remain in dialogue with them?" She takes "'their' silence in some way (as) terrible proof that such a language cannot be communicated.”

In her letter Frederique Chabaud gives several explanations as to why intercultural dialogue becomes difficult, if not impossible. This is especially the case when everyone finds him- or herself in despair and things are ready to explode (not implode). She writes:

"Times are overdue, misunderstandings, misleading truths are spreading around creating the terrible void of war: to get rid of the other, of the terrible opposition, of the fear - not so much the triumph perhaps of one's cause, but let it be the only one remaining, our ‘own’.”

She saw very clearly what was happening on the ground in the Middle East and described it on hand of three key elements:

"constant acceleration/escalation of the war and menaces and alliances/contra-alliances"
no one knew "when the intensification of violence is going to peak" the next day or not
"the huge unsolved burden of the past and present was ready to explode in hate and irrational behaviour".

To this she added with great empathy something which underlines her position:

“If I were a Jewish woman, I would never accept the rationalization of my pain and the refraining of my burst of anger or shout - in the desert. I wouldn't listen.”

When it came to reflect further the concept of ‘intercultural dialogue’, by way of association she picked up what she had observed at a meeting in Brussels:

“Again a science fiction tape, with a stop of the mind, of the critical mind. That's why it is so handy for other initiatives (like the "intercultural dialogue" last week) to integrate other discourses about values, religions, culture - "our" common roots, "our" common challenge. A dangerous mix of approaches and half understood values, half valued attitudes of the brain, half meant good intentions."

As to the articles and efforts to keep up the correspondence with people who did not agree and who saw things develop differently, she made following comment:

“But what you did with this article is reflecting beyond the usual lines of the journalists' emphasis and pull all strings together. Basically, reading it, I understood many connections better, I read as well the sentences you quoted from Isaac all together, and had the same rejection feeling towards this kind of argumentation (that I heard from a young Jewish woman, University professor). An angry reaction, but reading your lines I realised the potential of understanding was already exhausted in stating truths (Isaac) to make you understand something, you obviously rejected straight away. He cannot be in the position of receiver, as the war is developing exactly according to this argumentation... seemingly. To fight against a model of explanation is - Cervantes’ work, Sisyphus... and with which legitimacy? In their eyes, because there is the core of things.”

She saw the futility in the effort to restart the debate even after she had modified some aspects when wishing to tell the other the truth (as if ready to tell him off). She did so by softening some wordings and still she came to the conclusion that it will not work.

“I tried as well to transform the style: putting some ‘perhaps’ or ‘don't you think’ to re-launch the debate... but I fear it doesn't work this way either.”

Most telling is how she perceives and defines ‘dialogue’ especially once she started to notice that it is being referred to a lot especially in a situation of war when both despair and ‘silence’ reign:

"In your last mails you used the word 'dialogue' often, or did I notice it because I became so attentive to it? - since last week, I am convinced that the repeated necessity of 'dialogue' is a 'fuite en avant', not able oneself to understand how the world works, we enter a dialogue. But it is not enough to speak, write to one another, eventually work together; there is the absolute necessity to accept to unsettle oneself by experiencing beyond one's own self-understood reality, to work in mind and heart to apprehend the reality of the other. Now the dialogue is often speaking to one another: Babel was born at the beginning of this century and explodes already. There is the perverse use of this word that is just about to kill it - from within so to say. Now the Commission imposes some sorts of new 'trilogies'... even better, more balanced because of the intrusion of the 'third' element?"

There remained one question: what to do? By pointing out what was missing, namely understanding, she returns as she sees it to the futility of dialogue only started because we do not understand the world we live in. At the same time, she raises the level by invoking a truth element.

“what can one do? where is the necessity to act when you don't have the first (weapon) of a true understanding?”

2. ‘Intercultural dialogue’ - a problematic concept

Eight years later (2010), what characterizes the situation? ‘Intercultural Dialogue’ was adopted as a key concept by the EU Commission in 2007 and made into one of seven official criteria for evaluation purposes of cultural projects to be funded by the EU. This was followed up by the European Commission which designated 2008 to be the year of 'international dialogue'. It made possible (by having a legal base) the funding of some very specific projects. One of the selected projects was implemented by the Menuhin Foundation. That particular project entailed taking stories from one cultural context into another. Intended was to become sensitive to cultural differences insofar as different aspects of the same story would become important once told in another culture. [3]

In conjunction with that project two additional things should be noted. First of all, Frederique Chabaud had left by that time her job as coordinator of EFAH to become the director of the Menuhin Foundation in 2003 and where she stayed until 2010. As to the idea of the project itself, this had been proposed already by Alan Dix from London to the EU project REINVENT in 2000. Frederique Chabaud knew about it as she examined as coordinator the prospects of EFAH joining the project during that same year.

For sure ‘intercultural dialogue’ entails many more aspects than what can be expressed in one letter. Still her ideas and viewpoints communicated in the form of a letter, that is at personal level have ramifications till today. On the one hand, the letter had the impact of silencing certain efforts to understand together what was going on in the Middle East and after 2006 she terminated even herself all communication. In retrospect, it appears as if she wanted to fulfil her personal understanding of what could work out, what not. On the other hand, the letter gives testimony to failures to be faced when attempting to resolve, for instance, conflicts in the Middle East through dialogue.

As to my texts written about the Middle East in 2002, Frederique Chabaud did not seem to accept that dialogue was a way of reasoning with others. Even when not succeeding right away to stop further construction of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, that is no reason to give up on dialogue. Not everything but certain things can be overcome at the level of the imagination even if facts on the ground are being created. The withdrawal from the Gaza strip by Israel is such an example.

Dialogue in earnest means taking up the work on solutions many would not accept under prevailing conditions or think that is not possible. Precisely the demand for peace is as Michael D. Higgins puts it an impossible one, but which safeguards one against any inconsistency in terms of human ethics. It is also a fact no one thought the Berlin wall would come down. But for the impossible to happen certain contradictions will have to be worked through before anything else is taken up. People need also concrete proofs that even impossible things can be worked out provide one does not give up and stays as said consistent within oneself. It strengthens a sense that definitely some things can be done better together than fight each other e.g. common water management projects as was the case when Rabin was Prime Minister of Israel.

While many can name certain conditions if peace is to prevail, too often the mistake is made that security as factual precondition excludes automatically the other. Yet if dialogue is to be realized the other has to be treated as equal and have the same access to a common ground. That would amount to a possibility of setting the terms as well and not just obeying the terms which the other side predetermines. Right now the situation is at best asymmetrically defined by Israel with Palestinian resistance being almost the only weapon against occupation.

This has changed since 2002 with regards to Palestinian efforts to counter Israel by non violent means. At least in the West Bank things have changed in this direction. Even the World Bank acknowledges efforts undertaken there amount already to fulfilment of conditions leading up to statehood.

But to remind dialogue is not based on preconditions. Rather it helps to examine the conditions under which it is possible to fulfil preconditions, including talking with the other and learning to understand the position of the other. At the same time a lack of fulfilment thereof should not be used as an excuse not to take up the dialogue with the other. A continuity of efforts in good faith must prevail at all times to keep open communication channels. This is the real meaning of staying in touch with the other side through dialogue. As this will have ramifications in terms of respecting the sovereignty of the other, everything conveyed must be based on this notion of equality i.e. it is impossible to say this is 'my land' for it is first of all common land to which everyone has access. Something similar exists in Greece even though it is violated in practice, namely that everyone must have free access to the sea and hence no one can build along the shorelines in a way that would privatize the access. Israelis and Palestinians have to learn to dismantle these fake hierarchies allowing one side to say: 'this is my table and you are only allowed to sit down if I give the permission.'

In the Middle East or in Northern Ireland a special interpretation is needed to unlock the situation. Everything seems sheer hopeless if that precondition of an open ended dialogue cannot be fulfilled by the parties on both sides of the conflict. Adorno called what is needed not an interpretation (as described by Ricoeur) but a 'Deutung': a psychoanalytical kind of risk taking by showing suddenly an understanding. That moment comes when all explanations prove insufficient because the real reason for the pain remains largely unknown. For instance, when a child cries a mother can unlock it by showing an amazing skill. It is less guessing, then showing an understanding why the child is crying and this free of any judgment. This is not the empirical but the inner self which is liberated through such an outer understanding. It encompasses identity, existence, language and visions since this kind of understanding makes free the space and therefore allows for new form of mediation between the self and the world without loss of face. That freedom from judgement is vital. The moment a child feels understood and accepts the interpretation which goes with it, it will be relieved and soon run out to join the others again. The inner and outer self is then reconnected and communication with the world of the others possible again.

That moment of relief is in any dialogue of great importance. Greek philosophers speak about catharsis but in practice it is 'Deutung' which makes the difference. By showing how one understands the pain of the other - by means of an 'intuitive guess' needed because the empirical evidence is not sufficient to give an explanation and thereby unlock the pain - a new opening can be ascertained. Naturally any show of understanding can easily be rejected if wrong or the person addressed in this way does not feel being understood. Verification of any understanding is only possible if the other includes his or her own self-understanding. Naturally critics of this approach would say it works only at individual level but not at collective and inter-state levels. That may be true. However, it is conceivable that with a dialogue becoming creative by involving the imagination that other preconditions can be made out which so far have not been touched upon and which may be the real reason for not finding until now any solution. Subsequently this and not any other precondition has to be made into a subject of negotiation in order to give dialogue a chance to connect the individual to the overall process. For that precondition can provide an explaination why the peace process has either failed up to now or been at best a most faulty one insofar as there has been reached only an agreement to disagree.

A dialogue made possible by showing sudden understanding through an intuitive guess depends upon the honesty of the addressed; otherwise no feed back shall be given to verify the interpretation. Instead everyone will continue wearing masks to hide true motives. That mutual dependency upon honesty in any dialogue should not be forgotten.

In situations of despair and plight a show of human kindness is also needed to unlock the pain. A human touch can make both sides return together to the public level of discourse. It is like divers coming up for air. That is never self understood. For dialogue is of such demanding nature. It shall never be easy at one and the same time to stay personal and yet go public. There has to be avoided insulting or exposing the other side; on the other hand, only in public can be reached an agreement. This is because any agreement has to qualify as a public truth. That is only possible if based on real empathy to allow for a common knowledge to which each side has to have free access. Through dialogue can be explained what has been agreed upon. Furthermore it will make explicit which precondition for coming to a real agreement will have to be fulfilled in order to start implementing the peace process. It is like stepping back in order to go forward.

At all times attaining a public truth of the terms of agreement is vital. Otherwise the worked out peace process cannot be upheld. For example, if it is only an agreement in secret, mistrust of those stayed outside the negotiation process but are still affected directly by the outcome will break any agreement even before the ink of the signatures has dried. In the case of the Middle East the settlers threaten, for instance, not to abide to the building stop, while the Palestinian side cannot afford a further loss of face if forced to agree to a basically unacceptable situation. That is why the terms of agreement have to replace those dictated until now by the one sided power Israel holds. Moreover none of the terms can be based solely on own experiences. Rather the agreement will have to make possible new experiences in order to see if the peace will hold. It is called verification on the ground. Some immediate signal must be felt by all who move about in the area e.g. lifting of barriers and continuation of the building stop. That special condition of being open to an uncertain future needs to be discussed still further and be faced publicly as this can only ascertain peace. For then both sides will have equal access to the process which can alone sustain any agreement made. Peace will have the validity of being common knowledge.

Important in this strive for public openness is that both sides acknowledge that an agreement can only be ascertained if together they wish to attain a common truth. It means the agreement can be reached by acknowledging what constitutes a common set of values. By giving mutual recognition as to what made the agreement possible, it shows a way as to how peace can be upheld. The latter requires in the text something which stipulates in a clear way how different interpretations of the once agreed upon agreement are to be resolved. This is needed before contradictions and violations thereof lead to renewing irresolvable conflicts prompted by both sides failing to understand each other in terms of the need for peace.

This is why dialogue links up in the long run with discourse as understood by Michel Foucault. He saw the latter as moving from one original source of values and consensus to another one and therefore to a new constitution. Without such a base dialogues would be unthinkable.

In other words, no peace agreement will be possible if it does not serve as bridge between ongoing dialogues based on an assumption of common values while naming the problems in terms of clear jurisdiction as defined by the constitution. It is self understood that the latter has to embrace basic Human Rights and which holds for both Israelis and Palestinians. Only once such a constitution is in place, can both sides commit themselves to uphold the jurisdiction of law and therefore respect also the borders drawn up to designate for which territory the respective state is responsible. A state does not belong to any specific group but must safeguard all lives.

Unfortunately as if a systematic neglect that difference between constitution and peace agreement has so far played no role in the diplomacy exercised in the Middle East. From a European perspective this neglect should be analysed whether or not the concept of intercultural dialogue leads the negotiators astray rather than bringing them on course and towards a sustainable peace process. Without such a direct reference to the need for a constitutional prerequisite in order to recognize statehood, it is highly unrealistic to deal with Israel as long as it does not have its own constitution. The same applies for Palestine. Only there the restraining order imposed by the Israelis has made it that more difficult to draft a constitutional vision on the assumption that the principle of a common law can be developed and established in the Middle East. This has been further aggravated by the split between Hamas and Fatah on the Palestinian side with a tendency on both sides to resort to old texts like the Koran or Bible to reaffirm values of the past due to the failure to write together a new text able to inspire all with a sense for common values.

The problem of reaching a peace agreement shall not be resolved if there is missing a common source of values to ensure the peace will last. This has to be linked to both sides having first of all a constitution in place for otherwise no peace agreement can be ascertained. Only through their respective constitution can both the Israeli and the Palestinian side set aside principles based on irresolvable grievances and embrace the law as sole jurisdiction of the respective states. Any agreement has to be in accordance with the terms to the other state. As both states shall be intractably linked to the other, the Israeli and Palestinian states need to include in their respective constitutions already the recognition of mutual borders.

Israel will have to abandon its pragmatic stance kept till now by not having a constitution. This has allowed Israel to push ever further its demand for an expanded territory while crossing over to Palestinian territory cannot be deemed as an act of war. That would be the case if a state border. So far Israel has continued its occupation almost unchallenged by the world. Always Israel claims to be acting in terms of its own security needs and not as a state responsible for the lives of the others since merely an occupying power. The very lack of a constitution gives Israel the maximum flexibility to interpret and to justify whatever it does as securing the existence of the state of Israel. The drawing of its borders can thereby be postponed into an indefinite future. But without having an own constitution Israel cannot enter the dialogue about peace in any real sense. After all the word peace means to all people around the world the same, namely the freedom to enter dialogue and to resolve conflicts through dialogue.

Dialogue depends upon memory to stay differentiated. Once there is this break between memories needed to work things through while the terms are not set, it will be impossible to adapt to ongoing changes. Cultural adaptation includes the needs of the others before setting out to open up to a dialogue. Without such a model to facilitate learning from the others, dialogue will miss out on the subject matter. Both parties will, therefore, stay apart and not enter the present tense of the other. But without this present sense no translation of complexities will be possible. That is only possible if the other is viewed as an ethical entity linked to the stream of humanity. There is beauty in such evidence of being present in the presence of the other as the same time will make possible new experiences without fleeing back into the past or else withhold recognition due to an uncertain future.

Outside the present sense expectations shall stay on hold while everyone waits for pragmatic reasons to see how things shall develop. No one will contribute to improve upon the situation while that what is happening on the ground will merely continue to aggravate an already bad situation. In such a static state any dialogue will be hard pressed by tasks ahead while being inhibited by the past. That makes dialogue extremely difficult, if not impossible. To the extent to which some openness prevails, it says a lot already if at all possible. Naturally much depends upon whether or not in future that static state of mind can be overcome. Dialogue will also depend on a willingness to let the other talk in order to hear another truth.

Dialogue can develop very spontaneously but it differs from just talking nonsense. To unfold there cannot be any hesitation in naming the problems directly at hand. At the same time it is crucial not to blame either the system or any specific individual for all short-comings. Rather through dialogue should be ascertained an independence in knowledge in order to show some self responsibility. By showing as well that this kind of dialogue is equally with the self, indeed even a self-critical one, it can further a mutual understanding at personal and real i.e. social and political level. Once dialogue can be moved ahead through clear thinking and feeling about the other, it puts each and everyone into a new tension field with the other. They need then time to find out exactly what they want from each other. Here it does make a difference to progress from merely see from one's own side what problems need resolving and formulating possible solutions for common problems after having adapted to the perception of the other. Peace has for each side another and special meaning. What Frederique Chabaud implies, namely that a concept like 'intercultural dialogue' cannot integrate different discourses, is relevant here in search of another way to integrate through a peace process different dialogues. For that is needed a common understanding as to what works in the larger context of society. Once knowledge is based on experiences as illuminated upon through dialogue with other people, then the working of institutions like those of the European Union becomes conceivable. In the Middle East such an institution to facilitate common governance is not as of yet in place but can become a model for the future. It has to be based on a dialectical relationship between various parts and what will constitute a whole more than the individual states, including all the others of the Arab world.

The relationship between the particular and the general was in classical philosophy a dialectical relationship to the whole, not a premise for dialogue. That philosophy used for national state building foresaw reason on the one side, insanity on the other. The dichotomy meant not really speaking with the other once pushed over to that other side. This includes the one without a job as that person was automatically equated with sickness, insanity or at best a highly unrealistic way of living. Michel Foucault was one of the first philosophers who tried to overcome this dichotomy in his book about the history of insanity and the institutional practices linked with that definition of sickness. The latter he explained in his book about the birth of the clinic which implemented as well through its system of categories to make diagnosis of various sicknesses and treat them accordingly a definition of health. Michel Foucault showed that this linked directly to the definition the army used to select healthy soldiers i.e. those willing and able to follow orders and to fight whatever war they were send into. That presupposed as well the state had a monopoly over the use of power and could identify alone what is a threat and therefore a right to defend itself. This dichotomy ended in people becoming extremely desperate as they could no longer exist with such a state of mind fixed to a reason not possible to be lived. The two world wars which Europe went through can be explained partially by this notion of a state which was able to exist only be expanding i.e. trespassing the borders of the others. (Hegel) It proved to be a disastrous way to seek survival through war as it has been always the case throughout history.

Derrida looked at writing and reflections in terms of thoughts making a difference. He showed that on hand of some poems by Paul Celan and yet went astray in the abstraction from direct meanings. This is because dialogue needs another level of reflection if imagining how by extension writing is a second reflection instead of an action. That is not merely a matter of perception and interpretation of texts but the realization of the form of understanding within which dialogue is possible. There are three steps involved: man and his method as the art of posing questions, the inner reflection of the social being and writing as second reflection of the intended action. Altogether this constitutes the possibility of acting in memory of the other to know what this dialogue means for the future of this relationship.

Spontaneity in moments of dialogue signals freedom. It allows the unexpected, the unknown, the problematic; the unresolved enter the conversation all while dialogue constitutes itself in this original form of understanding. What begins to exist then is equal to reaching out to the other. If it includes the unknown then it encompasses real human relationship. Beauty comes into play once the moment proceeds to become lived through experiences.

As a matter of fact dialogue is most engaged in both an active and passive sense. It is set apart from other forms such as chats, small talks, narratives, stories told with imagination and a lot more to round up an evening. A dialogue differs insofar it entails the best reflection of what thoughts came spontaneously to the mind. This can be experienced when the question-answer dialectic unfolds and everyone follows up what was said with yet another question. The Socrates like method is not the method of association Freud had in mind to unlock the unconscious and neither it is just a talk usually denounced as a kind of verbalism. Rather dialogue is an earnest search for truth while its spontaneous nature ensures that it can be like a river flowing underneath the bridges used to cross over to the other side.

In short, dialogue is a way to see in a constructive way how society and world are affected by different forces. That makes it into a search on how to cope in a world often giving no indication as to what can be done without thereby giving up oneself. Through dialogue people strive for a knowledge based on a consensus with others and in turn this shows what needs to be upheld. The test for any truthful dialogue is how each participant retains a capacity to uphold the ethics of mankind. It is done best by being truthful. To this has to be added, however, the cleverness of Odyssey who could talk himself out of many troubles by doing exactly that, namely engaging the other(s) in dialogue. This way they would come to see that what was best for them was to let him go as a free man.

Dialogue was a common practice in Ancient Greece. Aristotle named one important condition if a dialogue is to be fruitful between friends. They should not hesitate to tell each other the consequences of any intended action even if not pleasant to be confronted by such a frank opinion. A true dialogue has ramifications for life.

Contradiction is naturally a special category to make any dialogue become fruitful. It is based on knowing any claim of knowing the absolute truth cannot be true. Any claim to the contrary is already a contradiction. The terms need to be set accordingly. Of course, every dialogue can be qualified by each party claiming its own specific truth i.e. a Jewish settler wishing to stay enjoying the luxury pool in West Bank settlement of Ariel as much as a Palestinian farmer wishing to work on the land of his ancestors. Both can enter a dialogue if they are prepared to deal with the contradictions between both claims of truth and accept that they see use of land differently. If that premise is not accepted, and that is usually the case, it would automatically exclude man's own admittance not to know everything and thus effectively prevent any dialogue from even getting started.

The philosophical position for that was summed up best by Adorno who refuted Hegel when he wrote in Minima Moralia that 'the whole is not the truth'. If that is not recognized then indeed things can appear to be hopeless. By extension, a main contradiction in war is to kill while claiming to protect life even though it means that life can be subdivided into theirs and our 'own' - an impossibility. As Frederique Chabaud stressed in her letter the common life of humanity can be negated by such pretension of caring only about one's own life. Once people believe that they can do that, namely to separate off their 'own' life from that of 'the others', then dialogue shall falter and never touch upon the imagination. Nothing works if is separated from real life and therefore without any imagination. The latter is crucial in order to have and to maintain empathy for the other. Frederique Chabaud has such amazing empathy; all the worse once she withdraws it. That is the significance behind her words when she considers understanding to be a first 'weapon' in need of if any action is to take place.

There is another reason why dialogues do not take place. Already Cornelius Castoriadis had warned that the iterative logic used for computer programmes would reduce the ability to think in contradictions and leave everything at the mercy of either/or alternatives; to go on would only be possible after having given a commanding 'yes' or 'no'. Jürgen Habermas called them the false alternatives. Indeed human relationships depend upon understanding each other in all the nuances as to what was intended to be said and what it should mean. The stutters of someone for not knowing and for not understanding everything should not be used to drive that person into all kinds of predicaments. This is usually done by offering impossible, equally false alternatives without giving recognition to the inherent contradiction.

Of interest is that James Clifford speaks about 'predicaments of culture' since everything seems to have become the same throughout the world i.e. coca-cola everywhere. What should be clear is that without dialogue people are driven into predicaments. Once caught in them they seem unable to see and to relate to real differences that do exist. Instead they will flee into fictitious even wrongly footed make belief worlds and in an effort to unify everything under one common, equally 'our own' reference point, they will close all doors to keep out all others with their different world views. An explanation for such behaviour may come from the fear people develop in a world in which they make apparently no longer any difference and more so if that world appears to be indifferent to them. Only once inside an empty room and when completely alone, can they admit to themselves that they are basically without an identity and therefore as lost as everybody else.

Frederique Chabaud says something similar in her letter but puts it differently. She thinks the necessity of dialogue is stressed whenever we are no longer in a position to make sense of the world. Yet dialogue is not a hiding behind closed doors. Rather it is an attempt to make sense out of things even though a lack of understanding may be a sign that man has gone too far and therefore is no longer understandable as he has trespassed borders or limits of humanity. Nathalie Sarraute pointed out Kafka was one of the few writers who attempted to go further than human understanding. He followed in his imagination those scientists who were experimenting already at that time with nerve gas as weapon. Common people would not understand a thing what they were doing or why the experiments.

Bertrand Russell said many intelligent people threw themselves into research after the realization during First World War that technology entails a lot of power over people. He added what they missed despite of their high intelligence was a sense of morality and humour. Both together make a human being what is to be expected of anybody: to be a creative individual but who stays within the limit of what can be understood by the others. Going beyond that has consequences for all. That is why Einstein held onto his idea of a unity of theory to ensure the self-independence of nature and the world from whatever man does is recognized within the self-understanding scientists and people can communicate once together they share that knowledge. That ethical principle reflected the conscience which was at stake when besides Einstein Born, Oppenheimer, Heisenberg, von Weizsäcker conducted research linked to the potential development of the nuclear bomb. It is that grave once ethical limits are trespassed.

Certainly not everyone will react in the same way even if the situation suggests otherwise. Of course mass conformity does exist even at the level of the elite. Wrongly it thinks it can set itself apart from the masses. Nevertheless every person can still make a difference and more importantly the working through contradictions is always a possibility. It depends upon a conscious decision whether or not this work is done.

By the same token it does mean values can be discussed; it is only a question of how! Crucial is in such a case the verification of what can be known together and that this validation happens in an honest way. Terms used to describe situations must correspond to what meanings both sides attach to the same term. That becomes significant in situations of conflict i.e. when someone from the one side is killed by someone from the other side. It must be agreed by both sides that a settler killed by militant Hamas followers or a Palestinian boy throwing stones by Israeli soldiers is equally deplorable and which cannot be justified.

The way things and actions are justified matters most. While one sided justifications may offer a release from a guilty consciousness, in reality they lead to many more contradictory entanglements. Famous for that is the justification used every time Israel goes on to attack, namely that it has a Right to defend itself. Already for a long time that is highly questionable especially when defending your own life can be transformed from one moment to the next into an act of aggression. Here a pause should be made and the dialogue restarted. That is only possible if the Israeli soldiers leave their tanks and Palestinians stop humiliating themselves as if they are not free people with the same Right to live as have the Israelis.

If a dialogue begins to relate to a free and human conscience, then it will make all the difference. It will ensure that one's own life shall be linked to that of the other(s). All human lives are precious. There is no justification for taking the life of either a settler or of a Palestinian boy. Truth is always impartial. What makes communication so difficult after such a repeated failure to sustain peace is, however, the misunderstanding any condemnation of the killing is exposed to by the one or the other side i.e. 'you are pro Israel' as opposed to 'you are pro Palestinian'. That applies equally to how anything said is put already into question as if it is impossible to remain impartial after having adopted, for example, a Palestinian boy. Not seen is that this can enhance as much an understanding amongst Palestinian for the precarious situation the Israelis find themselves in. It all depends how condemnations are communicated on the basis of these small and varied dialogues going on every day.

A communication based on a human language affirms life. There is no need for translation. Kapuscinski describes his driver as someone who spoke no language he could understand, but he still could make himself understood. When driving through dangerous territory, he just said grimly 'problem'. After having finally left that dangerous zone he relaxed and turned around to smile at him and then said just two words: 'no problem!'

Understanding the other and oneself is really a matter of perception of a life based on ethics. Together they make free speech authentic, equally the expression of a freedom from a 'guilty conscience'. Sartre thought about how the freedom of the conscience of the individual can be guaranteed. There is among other things the precondition of a separation between church and state or of religion and politics. Under these circumstances a free conscience would be the outcome of the dialectic of secularization i.e. no individual could be coerced by either the state or the church to go against his or her free will. A soldier does it by obeying the command and shoots to kill. Much preferred would have been that he follows his inner voice which is in tune with his conscience. Or as Dr. Huebschman, a doctor of psychosomatics in Heidelberg, pointed out in a working group examining the definition of health, a soldier who would faint rather than kill the Jews shovelling their own grave would be a healthier person than the soldier who obeys the command and does shoot to kill. Intentional killing is always a crime against humanity. The Geneva Convention on conduct in war makes that very explicit.

Insofar killing is preceded by the exclusion of the other(s) from one's 'own' understanding of life, it means in reality to subject oneself to the same act of killing. It amounts to a negation of one's free conscience and therefore free will. Repeatedly war criminals would justify in retrospect their act by claiming they were just following orders and hence doing merely their job as soldier. The apology ensures that one does not need to face in all honesty what one has done. It is a way to escape the need to see the other in the eyes as one Israeli apparently demanded at that conference Frederique Chabaud attended in Brussels. Indeed, if it does not come to that there ends the dialogue even before it could start.

When two persons stand vis-a-vis but do not enter the present of the other, then this is by itself a contradiction. No wonder. It signals yet another kind of silence begins to dominate as was the case between Sartre and Camus. The entire Left and many others suffer still today unforeseeable consequences because that friendship and more importantly their specific dialogue ended before they could link morality and politics in the same way that Robert Musil had addressed when speaking in 1929 at the Congress against Fascism of the need not to adhere to party principles, but to the free conscience. Thus if two people depart from that, it leaves both of them in deep despair. This is because they become merely conscious of a loss and face as a result mounting impossibilities. Without the experience of seeing things through together, the two cannot give each other both recognition and confidence that things can be worked out. Instead nebulous differences stand in each other's way. They no longer stand together against violence but risk violence turning against both by each going his or her 'own' separate way. When that happens, then humanity is about to bleed again.

Having said that, Frederique Chabaud's judgement as to what works, what not needs to be taken into consideration when appraising the chances of mediation. Her appraisal cannot be reduced to being a mere value judgement. Hence it would be wrong to interpret it as did Cornelius Castoriadis that values cannot be discussed. Rather it would just mean what negotiators would call the setting of the wrong terms i.e. those without correspondence to the meaning(s) of what the other side has attached to them.

3. The making of the Platform for Intercultural Europe

If subsequent activities by Frederique Chabaud after 2002 are added, then to examine the letter if it expresses already back then a kind of disparity in a continuity perhaps not strived for but in need to be attained if theory and practice are to go together. Strangely enough the letter has a tone of finality about it. This remains like a puzzle even today when reading the letter again, that is many years later on. This final tone cannot be really explained by what preceded the letter or by what followed. But then continuity was not one of her prime concerns. Rather she was preoccupied by other things. Still consistency is one key value in culture to provide and to give orientation. That is needed as well if contradictions are to be worked through.

Given the statement she makes, the letter remains a challenge to any effort seeking to find peace in the Middle East and to stay in touch with people by means of dialogue. Since it was never possible to work this matter out with her personally, hence this response to her letter eight years later on. By so doing, it should become recognizable how important it is to understand what she saw already then with so much clarity what works, what does not.

To come to terms with her position is all the more important since culture is largely an unknown territory. No one knows really how things work i.e. how people become creative. In her case while working in the cultural fields at EU level inconsistency may have come into play in a more forceful way than what she could have anticipated herself when writing that letter in 2002. She usually finds herself to be in that dilemma, namely able to see quite clearly ahead and realize that certain practices will not do but in a position in which she cannot do otherwise but play along, at least as long she is either coordinator of EFAH or director at the Menuhin Foundation.

If anything, looking back the letter appears to have been written as if she was preparing herself for a final act, namely to step outside in order to regain her consistency and then follow her own pattern which includes circling back in the hope another approach will work. As director of the Menuhin Foundation she may have thought many a times how to do things differently. But in practice she had to make use of ‘intercultural dialogue’ as it was a given due to having become an official EU program. So she got involved in discussions referring to this concept even though highly problematic in her eyes or it had to be used as tool of self propagation of the Foundation. In both cases it means pretending to be engaged in a particular field under the assumption the term 'intercultural dialogue' legitimizes such an action. The difficult of saying 'no' to such involvement is quite simple to explain. The concept means the possibility for the Foundation to secure EU funds for a certain project. Consequently if successful as was the case with the Menuhin Foundation in late 2007 when the selected projects were announced to be realized in the year 2008 designated to 'intercultural dialogue', then it had to be carried through under such an umbrella.

The letter and the subsequent actions of her add up when this tone of finality is noted. For sure she exposed herself consistently to her own inconsistencies. She must have applied a similar standard as expressed in that letter to all her activities while at the Menuhin Foundation. It must have been hard on her to know she is both subject and object of an inconsistency. Conscious of her own 'better' judgement there were nevertheless a series of actions in need to be undertaken in the name of the Foundation if only to survive, financially speaking.

Of interest is that in the letter she mentions her 'good will' as if standing in the way of any further clarification. Like many in her profession, that can lead to being tough against oneself. It stems from the need to face difficulties like survival within such a difficult terrain as the cultural sector. Working for a foundation means a constant search for funds while facing demands to live up to the high reputation of Menuhin. And to get a project funded by the EU, this involves many steps before a proposal has been written and handed in on time. Once the project has been accepted to be funded, it must be handled with great care. Above all the outcome must be presented to the European Commission in a way that proves the project was a success because of a right policy decision by the Commission i.e. to link funding of projects to the concept of 'intercultural dialogue'.

When the Menuhin Foundation showed a video of the project at a cultural conference held at the end of 2008 in Brussels, 75% of the time the European flag or the Commissioner congratulating a member of the foundation were shown while only 25% revealed some of the interesting contents of the project itself. The film reminded of how the old propaganda films looked like when Easter Europe was under Communist rule. Ironic is that Figel, then the EU Commission for Culture and Education comes from the Czech Republic and who should know about such practices. Unfortunate is that the need to prove EU cultural policy adopted by the European Commission as being successful means that anyone wishing to be funded has to join in the same chorus. No deviation is allowed.

Altogether European projects are from the beginning until the end quite a lengthy and complicated process as indicated by Frederique Chabaud in a lecture she gave in 2010 (see below for reference). The lecture was meant to show how Europe works. She made no mention of the fact that it is also a painful process. Not only numerous steps are involved but the timing and rhythm of the project is regularly off-set by irregular flows of payments from the side of the EU. As a result no proper budgetary planning can be made before, during and after the project. That negative side of European projects is a topic all by itself. MEPs of the European Parliament try to control the EU Commission as best as they can. Unfortunately their influence is limited to the usual procedures they have to adopt if they want to challenge bad practices within the Commission. Naturally those who implement the projects are the last to benefit from these overall efforts to maintain transparency and a flow of payment within a reasonable time. Unfortunately it cannot be guaranteed most of the time.

Her work ethics (and at times she was like a work alcoholic) made her adopt a determined will to see things through despite all these difficulties. Frederique Chabaud is always highly responsible and would go out of her way to complete what she had started even if it meant sitting up all night to finish the report. Confronted by the need to make compromise and sometimes forced to experience even self humiliating situations, it is clear from such a letter that she will do everything to complete something. But then that will be it. The tone of finality in the letter underlines her awareness that this will not last. This is more so the case when she has proven to herself already that it will not work out.

Short term adaptations in the form of temporary compromises are only possible by leaving something behind which had become too much to bear, namely her feeling of being inconsistent with herself. Thus the conclusion which precedes such a departure from first EFAH and then later on in 2010 from the Menuhin Foundation is presumably in her case an act of giving this particular cultural field at EU level a final notification.

All this is said to bear witness to her great sensitivity and more so to her most amazing, equally heartening voice. Once heard it affirms Adorno's concept of the human voice being the utmost revelation of an inner beauty. Thus when she refers to a language which cannot be communicated to people who are no longer to be addressed by means of a dialogue and therefore cannot be brought to terms with reason in that way, it has this meaning. Her voice alone attests that a language making possible human self-consciousness does exist. It is a language to be spoken free of any masks. And only then the face shows a correspondence between the inner and outer self. Such a self is no longer separated by what can be called the 'ontology of silence'.

No wonder then that she is always in search of the big stream of humanity. Unfortunately her unresolved nature means she has to go through tremendous conflicts between her inner and her outer, equally professional self. She will face it till she could no longer stand it and then she goes silent in a most certain way as she did in 2006 when she terminated all communication with me.

To undo the 'ontology of silence' is what this response is all about. Such a silence made into an absolute and into a not to be questioned fact can become in reality a wall separating the one from the other people. That was the case in Berlin till 1989. Unfortunately it has been continued not only in the Middle East but as well along the Mexican-American border, between North and South Korea and on the island of Cyprus. Walls of silence are put up the moment someone decides not to speak anymore with the other. Whatever the reason, the finality will retain in her case the upper hand.

Put in a different, indeed philosophical way, Hegel used the 'negation of the negation' to draw the border of nothingness. A wall is like death something unmoveable. It forces the one side to live in the shadow of the other without verification possibilities. It was always interesting when visiting East Berlin to see people stretch their heads in an attempt to catch at least a glimpse of the reality on the other side of the wall. This happened whenever the streetcar rumbled along the wall. It is a human need to verify whatever one hears about that other reality but which one cannot see with one's own eyes due to that wall. It is most inhumane. It denies all possibilities to live together in freedom.

To justify it, the East German regime called the wall a protection against Fascism; when Left Wing Greek politicians came to West Berlin, they did not go to see the wall so as not to be confronted by an ugly truth spoiling their belief the other side was the better half of Germany. A wall has thus many more ramifications than just its physical presence. With it go an entire array of lies and false justifications. This ruins any attempt to bring about a political truth to live by. Even the political scientist Richard Loewenthal suggested the Iron Curtain separating East and West Europe was needed to ensure a stable peace despite everyone calling this period in history the Cold War.

All the developments since the ending of the Cold War in 1989 have been a huge disappointment as if not dialogue, but new enemies are needed to split the world in a different way in order to continue making war in an unabated way. Certainly that became reality when Bush junior was elected US President of the United States and the Cold War Warriors returned to power to start a Hot War. When Iraq was invaded, significantly Frederique Chabaud wondered already then if human souls could sustain peace in such a difficult time ahead. Partially she has been proven right by what has followed since March 2003.

But to come back to the overall story, the moment the concept 'intercultural dialogue' was adopted at EU level it gave an opportunity for such projects as the one realised by the Menuhin Foundation. Consequently Frederique Chabaud participated as director of the Menuhin Foundation in still further going discussions linked to the concept of ‘Intercultural dialogue’. Among other things these discussions started already in 2006 and which brought about the creation of the Platform for Intercultural Europe.

On 1^st of November 2006 the Civil Society Platform for Intercultural Dialogue met to discuss the creation of a new platform for this explicit purpose. Organised by EFAH (which became later on Culture Action Europe) together with the European Foundation for Culture in Amsterdam participants at the meeting looked already beyond 2008. It was the year which the EU Commission had designated to promote intercultural dialogue. Sabine Frank was appointed as coordinator of these efforts seeking to establish the Platform. As pointed out by Ilona Kish, the coordinator of EFAH after Frederique Chabaud had left, that this effort is being made at the request of the European Commission. Out of that meeting followed the creation of the Platform for Intercultural Europe.

Such a technocratic extension of an operation using 'intercultural dialogue' as term to designate both the agenda and the mission of a Platform fulfils one purpose. It enlarges the role of already established cultural organisations at EU level. Significantly at that meeting in 2006 there was debated whether this means further and deeper involvement of artists or by extending the concept of culture rather the involvement of cultural organisations in general. Practically it meant not to focus just on the arts but to interpret 'intercultural dialogue' within a practical framework so that the Platform can operate at European level. Consequently it became a member organisation of cultural NGOs in the widest possible sense. Of interest is that inter-religious dialogue was left out as well as the aim to develop this tool of intercultural dialogue further in order to resolve conflicts in the world. Rather the main aim emerged during that meeting. The Platform should play a role at EU level as representative of both the cultural sector and civil society. It meant the extended concept of culture had been adopted even though Ilona Kish stated the most obvious, namely that it is impossible to talk about culture without reference to the arts. Of further interest is that this specific meeting in 2006 was followed up by the Rainbow paper to facilitate the discussion about ‘intercultural dialogue’, in order to see if it was a viable concept for future cultural actions. [4]

Whether or not Frederique Chabaud voiced similar concerns as expressed in that letter during those meetings is not known. But in support of her position she took back then, and despite all the efforts made in the meantime to further ‘intercultural dialogue’ at EU level and promoted further through such a Platform meant to represent Civil Society, this concept has remained to date a most problematic one. As it turned out when the Platform for Intercultural Europe meet in Brussels in June 2010, the position of Frederique seemed to be verified somewhat by Francois Matarasso. During that meeting he outlined on the basis of a paper he had written on the subject how difficult it is to find both in literature and practice a clear definition of intercultural dialogue. [5] Interestingly enough already at the ECCM Symposium ‘Productivity of Culture’ held in Athens in 2007, Max Aufischer from Graz had pointed out words like ‘intercity’ or ‘intercultural’ make no sense whatsoever as these terms reflect more a sloppy use of language than anything else. [6]

Since she participated as well in the conference about 'Intercultural Dialogue' organised by the Ministry of Culture in France held in Paris in March 2008, it can be assumed that she has insights into how, for example, the French model of integration works, if at all. The programme of that conference verifying the participation of Frederique Chabaud on the panel dealing with cultural diversity can be downloaded as PDF file from following web-address: http://www.histoire-immigration.fr/upload/file/ext_media_fichier_397_Colloque_AEDI_EN.pdf

Needless to say in France but not only there exist many negative dispositions which create too many problems for the immigrants. One crucial indication of troubles ahead was aside from the constant Right Wing campaigns of the LePen camp against foreigners the denial by a slim majority in France to ratify the EU Constitutional Treaty in 2005. Oddly enough it came about due to a coalition of left wing, but with Europe disenchanted followers of the Socialist Party and LePen; in other words, it was a left-right wing coalition which carried the majority. ATTAC of France was also heavily involved in the campaign against the Constitutional Treaty, while in the media the image of the Polish plumber made the rounds. It exemplified once more the power of the media to use oversimplified images to encourage stereotypical thinking. To propagate such an image meant stirring national pride and therefore prejudices against anything not French.

Sadly enough no real thought was ever given as to what this denial of the European dimension meant for subsequent developments. Even in 2010 those who voted for 'no' stick to their position. The denial left migrants with no alternatives when living and working in France. There is no real chance given to integrate into French society. That chance existed as long as it would have meant integrating into a society made up of France plus Europe. It has to be repeated for the sake of understanding: the failure to ratify the EU Constitutional Treaty amounts to a denial of the extra European dimension and therefore reduces the choice of integration to an either/or dilemma. It is simply a wrong alternative (Habermas). Such a dilemma can be interpreted as the result of an act of reductionism of everything that matters to being strictly in terms of being the French society. Once national prestige is linked to the need to respect only the French law, then such self understanding becomes inclusive, equally a sickening way to assert the fiction of an identity which cannot exist in the 21st century. To deny the other a human identity is to deny oneself to be something else apart from being French. And global problems cannot be resolved alone by France. Gone with this act of reductionism is a whiff of air thought to have been there, in Paris when the 'citoyen' of the French Revolution related to the whole world and listened to the wisdom of someone like Constance de Volney. He had warned the French Assembly after the Revolution not to reduce belonging to a political body as if that was able to sit at the table because it is 'my' or 'our' table and only if given permission may the stranger, the foreigner, the Roma sit down and share the meal. Thrown out the window with that failure to ratify the EU Constitutional Treaty was the historical opportunity for France to become a truly European Society.

A similar case played itself out as well in the UK after the London bombing of 2006. Immediately after the bombing in London not the multi-culturalism existing in London and which had helped to win the bid for the Olympics 2012 but ‘British-ness’ was endorsed. While it meant as first impression to praise in analogy to the Blitz Krieg of Hitler during Second World War the British virtue of staying both resolute and calm, upon a second look it seemed even strange for the BBC not to give recognition to the fact that London had changed since 1945. There are no longer just British people living in the city, but millions with a quite different cultural background. More important this so-called British virtue of civil behaviour has been adopted by everyone and this regardless of colour, religion or cultural background. Living in London meant until then exactly not succumbing to a single brand of cultural identity but an open way of accepting differences.

As a similar turning point was to be noticed after the assassination of the film maker Van Gogh in Holland, this development in reaction to obvious attempts to derail integration on the basis of a multi-cultural society is more general. This leads to the obvious question why a single act of terrorism like 911 can have as consequence such false reactions. It is as if there is a wish to be provoked in the wrong way in order to have an alibi for returning to an exclusive society.

To reduce a complex society to but one national identity leaves no room for any kind of mediation nor does it allow for cultural diversity as true interface of European society. Consequently any migrant has to deny his own cultural background. He has to refer overtly only to French, German or Italian law and identity while this reference is never explained sufficiently what it would mean in reference to Europe.

Nationalisation of cultural policy has that drawback of simplifying the identity question. It does not seize upon the chance Europe offers especially in integration matters. Once outsiders are forced to accept the French norm, they are robbed of any real integration chances. The reason is quite obvious. They lack public spaces to articulate how they envision their own integration. This would only be possible if they face a world having both French and European dimensions. That extra space matters if migrants are to find a new identity by combining all three dimensions: French, their own and the European one. They do not have to deny their own identity when embracing the French or German one as the European space means there is more to just one national identity. As a matter of fact, Adorno had already formulated it so well after Second World War for identity means above all accepting one's non-identity.

Interestingly enough this 'trilogy' was mentioned by Frederique Chabaud in her letter, She made then the observation as being an intention of the European Commission to introduce this third dimension into the cultural equation. The extent to which this has born any fruits is very doubtful. As a matter of fact, there can be drawn a direct connection between the failure to ratify the EU Constitutional Treaty in 2005 and how France under President Sarkozy thinks he can handle the Roma question in 2010. He wants to show resoluteness even though he violates EU Law insofar as he does not give to the Roma the recognition they deserve, namely to be considered European citizens even if they are like Nomads constantly on the move. But like the Arabic countries do not come to terms with the Nomads in a good way, the same fate must experience the Roma.

To remind, Frederique Chabaud had criticized in her letter the concept of 'intercultural dialogue'. She foresaw it was going to be used like a general tool to integrate all kinds of discourses without ever acknowledging any differences. As this says a lot on how the European Union has come to view and to handle cultural diversity, it is strange to hear her adopt in an interview given for the official journal of the EU Education and Culture a position which advocates a dialogue between EU institutions and cultural networks. What kind of dialogue she had in mind would need to be specified over and beyond the usual lobby work. The latter is usually linked to efforts undertaken to secure European funds for networks like EFAH or the Menuhin Foundation.

That turn around in language and more so in meanings attached to certain key concepts affects as well the Platform for Intercultural Europe. By 2010 the language adopted by the Platform has become very neutral or rather so technocratic that it makes no difference anymore as to where 'moral impulses' come from. The technocratic language in use squashes simply any sign of morality. An operation at EU level has to be based on the prime principle that everything has to be done in support of the European Commission. Whatever suggestions can made by Civil Society via the Platform to the European Commission, these proposals have to be conveyed by the European Commission to the Minister of Councils and their respective working groups. It makes the dialogue with Civil Society not only expendable, but leaves out the many substantial dialogues made possible by civil society and its organisations.

Nothing can replace the experience made when confronting directly issues like migrants with aids but without any official papers. Those involved are aware that other things shall be needed if any headway is to be made. That differs from the policy making level at which only general aspects are addressed and this not at all in a concrete manner. This is because when the Platform reports to the Commission, everything has been abstracted to sound plausible while real life experiences are left behind. The need to off-set such a tendency would be one of the reasons why there should be a direct link between practical work and such operations at EU level as the Platform for Intercultural Europe. Missing is both a fruitful working together of all members and a direct communication between all members and what is done in the name of the Platform by its General Secretary and the Steering Committee. [7]

That leads to another observation. There is an organisational way of silencing others. This pertains especially to those who pose a challenge to how the Platform operates. Silencing the potential critics is a widely applied method. It begins by isolating the person e.g. ‘you are the only one to say something critical’. And continues by pointing out an apparent contradiction insofar as it is claimed that all other members are satisfied with how the Platform is managed. Usually this cannot be verified as communication is held under strict control, top down so to speak. Organisationally speaking, everything is done so that members communicate only upstairs, personally and alone, in order to let the general secretary know what goes on. The others are not informed what information is shared between a single member and the general secretary. The hierarchical arrangement favours that each single member seeks advantages while the debate is never opened up for others to participate. Consequently the level of debate goes never beyond the mere functional and operational.

Such methods were used already by trade unionists that end up representing the workers without ever strengthening their articulation chances vis-à-vis the political and economic decision making process. Another method to silence members is to act completely independent from the members. Still the claim is upheld at European level that this structured dialogue is the best method by which the European Commission stays in contact with civil society. That cannot be confirmed in view of how the Platform for Intercultural Europe performs. Without a lively contact with the members to encourage them to communicate amongst themselves there are no givens on which to base this claim on. A lack of communication indicates that no feed-back is given to keep up both the discussion and the momentum in the work being done by the Platform. Insofar as the Platform operates at formal level independently, this communication process is not needed. A website serves as alibi that the members are informed or rather they can inform themselves if they so wish. Altogether that does no uphold what is claimed by the European Commission, namely to have entered a structured dialogue with Civil Society by creating such a Platform.

True participation would only then be possible between civil society and the European Commission if both would reflect themselves as being only partial and very different bodies involved in attempts to give shape to European society. The biggest difference is, of course, that the European Commission has available resources which civil society does not. Jürgen Habermas would point out furthermore another condition for civil society to be heard. Civil society and its organisations depend mainly upon entire movements which pick up a certain issue e.g. nuclear waste or climate change and therefore ensure that particular NGOs working on these specific issues shall be noticed at decision making level.

For sure, civil society especially with linkage to cultural issues does not have a voice of its own at EU level. There are, of course, multiple networks like the European Council of Music or institutions like Interarts in Barcelona while the European Foundation for Culture in Amsterdam is already another player at quite another, indeed policy making level. The latter has a great deal of influence since it has an independent source of funding and thus picks partners to advance certain causes. Thus it is no coincidence that the European Foundation of Culture together with EFAH, later Culture Action Europe was the prime mover when it came to create the Platform for Intercultural Europe. The disadvantage of these cultural lobbies is that they become concerned solely with becoming so powerful that they cannot be ignored any longer by the politicians and decision makers in the Commission. Instead of strengthening the members to be active participants, the cultural experts and operators heading the Platform seek merely ways and means to strengthen their own representative position.

No wonder then that the Platform for Intercultural Europe seems unable to handle really challenging issues. There is missing a practical perception of how to relate to different discourses without sweeping them immediately under the one and only carpet called 'intercultural dialogue'. If only such a Platform could break out of these pre-fabricated formulas, it would make a difference in how citizens with different cultural backgrounds would approach together the question of civil governance in no longer German or French but in European society. Instead the agenda of the Platform elongates the illusion of being engaged in the construction of such a structured dialogue with civil society. Rather the Platform is highly destructive and thereby risks loosing any substance in the process.

If the members are unable to give any legitimacy to the institutional process save during the yearly General Assembly when the budget is voted on, then this representative approach counters any structured dialogue. The latter would mean naming the steps in need to go through before any full legitimacy can be claimed when the Platform articulates demands at EU level. The failure to alter the language used to gloss over all these differences gives the main actors a chance to go through the motions as if dialogue is taking place. In reality everyone knows that silencing the members condemns them to inactivity. Naturally some admit outside the conference room that is not exactly the right direction to go in but once inside then the pretense to be altogether successful in whatever is being done takes over. It is like a show under the direction of an invisible director and producer. That leaves wide open, equally unanswered the question whether civil values provide still the moral impulses needed to be felt by the EU Commission if at least some of the worst mistakes in the already adopted policy are to be corrected. Since even that is not the case, the situation is indeed dismal to say the least.

4. The Middle East (2002 – 2010 or eight years later)

When she wrote that letter in 2002, there took place in the Middle East the Intifada. Suicide bombers left Israelis feel extremely insecure. This has to be kept in mind when reflecting upon that letter eight years later on.

By 2010 the US President Barack Obama has brought the Prime Ministers of Israel and of Palestine to Washington to resume the peace talks. The aim is to test anew what chances there exist to progress towards the creation of a Palestinian state. A two-state solution is sought as best guarantee for a stable and lasting peace in the Middle East. As to any outcome to emerge from this resumption of the peace talks, there prevails the expectation that the two sides will merely agree how negative is still the situation.

If so, it would but confirm the position Frederique Chabaud took already back in 2002. Her letter explains why intercultural dialogue by itself is subject to fail. If that is still the case in 2010, then it would mean nothing has been achieved in the meantime to bridge the gap between Palestinians and Israelis.

That no peace agreement could be made until now is all the more amazing since Israel has enjoyed a high economic growth based on IT industry but not only. For instance, it has managed to normalize its diplomatic relations with countless countries while there has been always the unwaivering support of the United States. When US forces entered Iraq in 2003, then prime minister Sharon greeted the Americans as new neighbors in the region. Israel had succeeded in drawing this super power into a local conflict and could feel therefore safer as the state of Israel was no longer as isolated in the Middle East as before. But that has serious implications when drawing into war the United States for a false or no reason at all. Still Israel exhibits the strange behavior of going ahead all alone and rather than building up trust, earns distrust as the world begins to see less the historical burden of the Holocaust and much more the ongoing violations of Human Rights with regards to the Palestinian. It does not help either that Israel remains mute on the possession of nuclear weapons and does not join the non proliferation treaty. By exempting itself from international law, Israel puts itself in an awkward position when demanding on the other hand that the world accepts Israel's own way of dealing with issues as if still abiding to international law. Such contrived reasoning can be clever and highly intelligent, but if the moral base is lacking, then self confidence will not be as strong in the long run as Israelis may feel a need for in face of a world as hostile as it can get when repeatedly angered by what Israel claims as a Right to defend itself.

One explanation of some self doubts creeping into an otherwise stable mental set of Israel may be some set-backs experienced in recent times. That can be linked, for instance, to the invasion of Lebanon in 2006. It ended in a debacle for the Israeli troops as the resistance of the Hezbollah was much stronger than expected. And there was that rain of rockets into Israel. It posed a real threat and unsettled many. To this can be added the botched attempt to stop the Flotilla making its way to the Gaza strip as an international sign of solidarity with the Palestinians suffering under Israeli's tough constraining order. It has upset diplomatic relationships with especially Turkey now ready to play a more active role in the Middle East and especially in relationships with regards to both the Arab world and Iran.

After the split between Hamas who control the Gaza strip and the West Bank which is in the hands of Abbas and the PLO, peace negotiations have this handicap that not all Palestinians shall be represented at the negotiation table. Abbas speaks only for a part of the Palestinian. It should also be kept in mind that the reason for the Arafat-Rabin peace accord nearly brokered by President Clinton failed because the Jerusalem question remained unresolved. That is a thorny issue to date. in 2010 many more reports sicker through that the Israeli control the city with a heavy hand and in so doing encroach ever more upon the Palestinian districts - a negative form of inner urban expansion. The wall has caused here a terrible division. Access to Jerusalem for Palestinians from outside is extremely restricted. When someone would die in a hospital in Jerusalem it is nearly impossible for anyone of the friends living in other parts of the fragmented Palestinian territory face insurmountable difficulties to come for a visit. Only the closest kin, in short father, mother, brother or sister are allowed through. Distances have become distortions of reality. What would take usually half an hour is due to all the restrictions, fortifications and wall an ordeal of five hours! How then to propose a dialogue when the Palestinian ends up facing a tank with the muzzle pointing directly towards him?

It is worthwhile to think a bit more about how precarious is the Middle East. A further mentioning of factors which stand out in memory can make more plausible what is possible, what not.

The Hamas movement has brought religion into politics while the overall region is unstable. That means the dialectic of secularization has not worked itself through the religion-political equation with regards to the masses of people still deprived of normal living conditions. Revolts against external suppression bring their own suppression of a different order and it may be even more vicious than that of the occupier. The difference can be explained as in the Greek civil war the two sides knew the hiding places of the other. Occupation from within is a strange phenomenon but it works like the waves of immigrations to the United States. In the case of Greeks the moment women followed the men, there came the church to perform the usual rituals of marriage, baptism and funeral. If religion becomes the defining element of community no one has a chance to stand up against it. The church and religion as such represents a long term memory which preserves common sentiments through ritual behaviour. The frightening thing is the fanatical element which can propagate the most reactionary behaviour e.g. stoning of a girl for adultery. The mixture of religion and politics ends in moral conviction while no one perceives this confusion between morality and law. If the Hamas are judged that way, what is then the case with the settlers of Israel and their religious affiliation? One conclusion out of this deliberation is that religion turned into a political force operates usually with images and reactions are no longer political. They are meant fore mostly to rally the masses behind an act of blind folding the outlaw before being shot. The element of execution has this finality about it.
The pull-out of US troops from Iraq, there since the invasion in March 2003 to topple Saddam Hussein, leaves behind a country unable to govern itself in peace. It did not bring democracy to the country. The West violated here its own law of upholding free elections as a peaceful and therefore non violent transition of power. On the contrary the massive intervention in Iraq was meant just that, namely to deprive the Iraqis from the possibility to emancipate themselves on their own terms from the suppression suffered under Saddam Hussein. The German term for that is 'Bevormundung' - to speak on behalf of the other as if he cannot speak for himself. Experiment mundi’ failed in a miserable way because generals and an army do not know how to protect civil society from being suppressed by an ongoing war. A lot of money has been made because of it. Equally a lot more has been wasted. Blackwater is just one example of the illegal practices deemed to promote democracy overturns every ethical principle and therefore makes the exit into a cheap taste in the mouth. The negative residue will not be removed for a long time while Babylon and other ancient sites have been plundered due to tanks not respecting ancient cultural heritage sites. Their destruction aims literally at the source of pride and identity of the Iraqis so that they cannot know anymore to whom they belong if not to themselves.
Then there is the tension with Iran. This has been building up since Khomeini returned in 1979. The toying with nuclear energy and potentially with nuclear bomb material is irresponsible. If in Germany it is already controversial to elongate the life time of the nuclear power stations which do exist, then why should Iran enter this new way of burdening future generations with a nuclear waste never to be handled properly. The German word 'Endlagerung' is like the 'end solution' of Hitler highly precarious. No one knows how to handle contaminated uranium. As if Chernobyl was not enough of a lesson, it seems political forces always know how much they depend upon technical innovation to be at the forefront of not nuclear, but political power. The problem is how to treat the government of Iran as a responsible body when it is known how rigged the last elections were. Again law is here propelled into society by not a religious body but by one figure alone: the Iman. That aspect of Muslim religion needs to be understood but as said by Michael Foucault the failure to find a new text for a value consensus in society means sooner or later people will flee back to an original text just in order to know and to wish everyone shall abide by the same values and therefore law.
As to Lebanon although more quiet after the war with Israel in 2006 faces an uncertain future. Inside of that country life has been like ‘schizophrenia of peace.’ Before the invasion of 2006 prospects seemed good. Tourists were expected. Beirut had come to life again. A cultural explosion was taking place. Then the invasion came. Since then the various political fractions can be subdivided into pro West and pro Iran and Syria equals the Middle East and it’s longing for an identity which can protect itself. That self protection as been all along the missing element in the Middle East. What to do?
The Syrian factor is being played out all the time. With interest the world follows currently the crack-down of the Muslims by the Syrian state. There are different versions of the same country when listening to an archaeologist visiting it and coming back excited. There is the person who has to work there as part of the embassy staff and finds it appalling how things are repaired by breaking them down even more so. Houses leak when it rains. The excuse is that it hardly rains throughout the year. Tight lipped are the guards but everyone has only one life. That should not be forgotten as Syria tries to shed the image of being a member of the 'axis of evil' as identified so by President Bush.
A similar precarious balance act is attempted by the Muslim Brothers in Egypt. Naturally there are many risks. Tim Sebastian speaks about getting stuck in a taxi with traffic moving no where. He then understands why people make appointment in the knowledge that they will never show up for the same reason. Traffic flow is of course a metaphor. Congestion as well. And pollution. Never mind the prestige of having not merely a big car, but also a huge family. There are things done others not. Mubarek is said to trim his son. Another dynasty in the making. Or are things reduced to that level by a lack of trust? Western aid helps to confuse the situation. It makes the morality of intellectuals highly precarious and the desires of a youth gone wild on the Internet into an interesting search for new forms to confront outdated norms e.g. marriage rules. Critical is Egypt's stand at the border with Gaza and the tunnels operating there. It is a mix of keeping control but also wishing to profit of that extraordinary need to ship materials through the tunnel. That tests the peace accord with Israel.
It makes no sense to leave out as well the change Turkish diplomacy has send some new signals into the world and into the Arab countries all struggling with Islam as a force defining relationships in accordance with Allah. How this resonates with the Islamic part of Turkey will be interesting to watch. The critical question is how Turkey will retain its own version of secularization.

Much more could be listed. They stand out because in the Middle East it is always possible to have a sudden flare-up somewhere. It may mark another upheaval to indicate political instability or at least this is how the Western Press sees it. Could the absence of dialogue explain many of the violent outbursts? Troubling is the continuity of doubtful methods i.e. suicide bombers targeting pilgrims or the setting off of bombs in another part of a city. While elsewhere everything seems to be calm at least for the moment, bombs go off just around the corner. There is no peace but also no full war. Rather people live a 'schizophrenia of peace', says Iman Mourad in Lebanon. While the youth comes back from surfing and enters a disco to enjoy music, just a few streets further down the block bombs go off.

The Middle East has always been in flux the region. It is like sand driven by the wind to create a landscape which did not exist the day before.

Frederique Chabaud speaks about screaming out the pain not in silence, but in the desert. She identifies with an Israeli woman who would not allow her pain be rationalized away. Yet if intercultural dialogue would take root in the region, it should not be one sided in favour of only Israel. Since the MUS-E project coordinated by the Menuhin Foundation has a partner in Israel, Frederique Chabaud has also this experience of how children are prepared there, for example, through music to enter a special kind of dialogue e.g. one instrument answering another while listening to the unexpected tones made by the other in response. That links art education with efforts to prepare the children for a future practice meant to enhance intercultural competences. Something similar is attempted in many schools in Europe since teachers face increasingly children with a multi-cultural background.

What sets Israel apart is the need for survival in self-isolation. Consequently there is practiced already from an early age on a kind of mental survival. Of interest is which models of survival researchers into cognitive abilities examine. One example is provided by Danielle Gurevitch. She examines the high ethics of King Arthur and his round table as told through a theatrical play.

(Note: The Relationship between King Arthur and Morgan le Fay in Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur by Danielle Gurevitch can be downloaded as PDF file at www.glossa.fi/mirator/pdf/arthurandmorgan.pdf )

Of interest for the researcher is his fallibility; he becomes conscious off it only when too late, he is already mortally wounded. He had recognized his true love too late to still enjoy it. Often he had denied the existence of love (and of jealousy). That was shown by King Arthur's strange behaviour. Whenever Lancelot went off with his wife, he did not react. He seemed not to be jealous. At the same time, he did not respond to advances made by another woman who he realized only at the end in his life the true love. That realization came as said too late. One explanation given by Danielle Gurevitch links the need to uphold a high morality with a special form of survival i.e. without giving in to corruption or other pitfalls of having power. The behaviour is explained by having become from a very young age on king. It had internalized all the values of the knights who consider it to be a virtue to uphold chivalry and everything that goes with it. Yet such mental exercise to survive under the condition of upholding an ethic is completely unrealistic. King Arthur never came to terms with his sexual desires and the need to feel being human by being in love and as a matter of fact also jealous.

The example of King Arthur points out something crucial. By analogy it can mean Israel fears quite another Achilles heel. It is known since the beginning of the state in 1948 that survival is based on a high morality. Consequently Israelis face similar dangers like King Arthur to fall victim to a self denial. They are supposed to live in accordance with what is required with the defence of Israel. That means a mental tension is brought about by a need to survive under the precondition of being like the Spartans rather tough on oneself. The danger is to become lax in one's behaviour. Israel's self understanding is that it can never relax its defence for then the others shall strike. A sleeping Arab, so the saying, is as sly as a snake which can strike anytime and suddenly.

As of late Israel has its own stories of contradiction and corruption. Most of the times they flare up in public but briefly before they are smothered out like a bush fire. One indication of that has been, for example, a general of the IDF being implicated for speculating with shares just prior to the outbreak of the war with Lebanon in 2006. Whatever this speculation entailed, it is connected with another factor. The Israeli Defence Forces did not perform well on the ground in Lebanon. Some new lessons had to be learned but which kind remains to date a question.

Somehow Israel has lost in conviction and resoluteness. Despite the toughness of survival made into a training of everyone regardless whether girl or boy it seems more mistakes are made of a systematic nature. The killing of people on the Flotilla after Israeli troops dropped from helicopters onto the ships was in clear terms a botched mission in 2010. It highlighted as well the inhumane condition created in the Gaza strip due to the tight closure by Israel. Again what happened exactly never came out fully. It was covered up by being subject of merely an internal report i.e. under Israeli control. Such handling despite the ships having been attacked when on their way to the Gaza strip but still in international waters expresses the deep distrust Israelis have that no outsider can understand their dilemmas and therefore be able to make a fair and just report.

That dilemma links to the need for a peace process. Israel cannot go all the way alone and still hold by sheer superior power the neighbours in check. Knowing the laws of the desert where a snake can strike anytime, there is no chance to relax for one moment. But to be all the time on guard tires out. If that dilemma could be linked to a dialogue about justice, it might alter the way the peace process is approached.

5. The Ontology of Silence

Silent can be the winds but everyone knows they can pick up again and then swirl around anything not nailed down. In silence the drop of water into a bucket becomes more audible. In resistance silence meant not betraying the other. It would also be a moment when footsteps outside left all the men inside the small room hover in silence. They would hold their breath until the danger of being detected would pass by. And then there are other strange linkages to silence like the wish to silence the person one loves the most because that love is perhaps too difficult to bear.

There is also the danger of cultures becoming silent with regards to each other. Prof. Kacem said at the ECCM Symposium 'Productivity of Culture' in Athens 2007 that the dialogue between cultures was no longer taking place. He meant especially between the Arab world and Europe but not only. He foresaw the critical turning point being when the tributes feeding the great stream of humanity would dry. If these different and varied dialogues would no longer take place and cultures no longer carried on by poets, writers, story tellers, musicians and teachers, what then would be the case? Given what Frederique Chabaud said already in her letter about the impossibilities of dialogue, alone by that measure things seem to have gotten worse since 2002. It resonates with the question Michael D. Higgins felt in need to ask after hearing the speech by Kacem. He felt provoked to ask what Edward Said would have said when hearing such a thesis.

As to Europe there prevails by now another kind of silence. It is a silence existing not only due to a loss of communication with people in despair as the case of those in the Gaza strip. Michael D. Higgins said it in so many words at the ECCM Symposium 'Productivity of Culture' held in Athens in 2007 that it is disgraceful how the European Union has handled the Hamas issue. Moreover he stated it to be a sign of sickness in the intellectual discourse of Europe when the national sovereignty of Israel is praised while remaining silent at the same time about all the violations of Human Rights on the other side of the wall.

Silence can also be taken as an indication of not knowing any solutions. Karl Marx had said people are only then willing to see the problems, if solutions for them are known. The only problem with that is if so, then people would end up living in tautologies. They would not see beyond those self-restrictive borders. Instead they would be caught up in their respective systems defining for them possible solutions under these circumstances. As in the Middle East, political legitimization for doing nothing is derived from claiming circumstances do not allow right now any peace accord. Once accepted as legitimization of everything else not done, politics would turn into a systematic prevention of further going efforts to find solutions for both sides. Thus living within tautologies and a system delineating the possible from the impossible would have to be based on two kinds of self-denial. The one kind would reproduce itself in all kinds of pretexts as to why one could not do anything to alleviate the situation. The other self-denial is linked to being just realistic and therefore ends up denying making what Michael D. Higgins calls 'impossible demands'. They are maybe dreams but still just demands e.g. for peace in the Middle East. Such self-denial does not give to oneself really a chance to exist. There is the blank fear that any alternative to that would put everything at risk. Hence nothing is done to break that silence.

The intricate logic of self-denial works only when exclusive, equally inclusive security measures are adopted. Designed to feel safe from outer enemies or threats by just being on 'own' territory, it requires being tough and hard as much towards those others as to oneself. That reproduces a blindness of man's own vulnerability. Human weakness would be denied as other characteristics are praised especially in movies e.g. taking law into your own hands or ready to shoot first and then ask questions later. This myth of violence equals justice always on the side of the good guys is a scheme designed to bring people to survive in the system. According to the general line of reasoning, they opt for being tough and ever more so prepared to defend the own territory with whatever means it takes.

For sure, the adopted stance of toughness would rule out any positive problematization of the self in relation to others. Yet that it is the very nature of the dialogue: to start wondering how to find a solution. It would be already one in the making if through the discussion the participants succeed in formulating the problem in a more precise manner. If this debate turns then into an imaginative dialogue, then a fruitful discussion could start even if no solution was in sight. Tossing back and forth the problem can be the best way to find a solution. Since not all solutions are acceptable, the conditions under which they become possible have to be named as well. All this has nothing to do with deliberate attempts to silence people in order to make them accept any solution. Rather only liveable solutions can be accepted by both sides when that has been brought about by a dialogue. For that to take place everyone needs to open up to the other and together seek still other possibilities to find solutions.

Frederique Chabaud seems to have a notion of dialogue which becomes only necessary in the absence of an understanding as to how the world works. A creative dialogue does not make depend upon such a prerequisite being fulfilled. Rather the art of drawing out the other through ever better questions can let first the person unfold before relating to his side of the story by examining what answers it entails for these questions. Such a question and unfolding answer can be most forthcoming and help in a situation when nothing seems to work. There is always someone who can offer a way out by just posing another question or else mentioning a detail gone unnoticed till now. Details can make, however, a huge difference in how possible outcomes are perceived. It means especially in the Middle East, but not only there how to deal with fear e.g. what will happen if the Palestinians have their own state and demand that all refugees can return? If there is to be gained an understanding of how things work once a solution i.e. the creation of a Palestinian state has been found, then dialogue needs to anticipate the day after the peace agreement has come to a successful conclusion. Unfortunately too often the talks get stuck in just preliminary inquiries about some semi possibilities of working towards such a peace solution. It would allow according to Frederique Chabaud the domination of the worst enemy of people, namely fear.

Crucial is at this stage not the setting of priorities. More important is to be just to the situation found at hand. Things have to be seen as they are but that is only possible in the present. Here only dialogue can bring about the present tense. It is like in the theatre the spoken text is much more than just the written version. Everything else will distort the perception of what is taking place right now.

Once in the present, then things cannot be legitimized by resorting either to the past or to the future. These are different knows. Much more of importance is the handling of the complexity at hand. It is not easy to be just. By way of a dialogue remaining differentiated vital details can be picked up while no one responds only to one thing and acts upon it accordingly. Adorno warned during the student movement of '68 not to pick out of a complex theory just one element they may like and then act upon it because such an element, once taken out of its context, can make the entire action into something highly reactionary when just the opposite was intended, namely to free society from such a contraction to be determined by negative reactions.

When current circumstances are too difficult to allow for meaningful actions, while the resources available are few and far in-between, then all kinds of failures will be felt. Loss of human lives is just one aspect. The loss of real happiness quite another, equally terrible as people have just one life and without any joy they wonder if this life is really worth living? Such dark reflections fill many with dark moods. It reproduces itself in all kinds of inhuman acts, large and small, but always an expression of a short-coming. Certainly in such a state of resignation any attempt at dialogue will appear inadequate but at the same time be also feared since it can easily over demand the one holding onto that negative truth, namely that nothing works. This resignation to live is brought about since the gap between circumstances as source of legitimization and resources made accessible and available through dialogue cannot be bridged. When they fail to even criticize the false legitimization then only one possibility remains, namely to become cynical.

Something of that negativity is entailed in the judgement by Frederique Chabaud when she makes things become independent on understanding or not how things work. That can be even at times an aloof position. That may be the case once self-responsibility is reduced to a 'good will' which stands apparently in the way of efforts to restart the debate'. Here she makes a final judgement out of a sophism that does not really suit her otherwise brilliant argumentation.

Exactly here the culture of dialogue would be needed to bridge that gap between circumstances and resources available. Spyros Mercouris thinks since culture has the capacity to renew itself, the productivity of culture has every chance to make a difference. It all depends in which direction things develop. If only in a commercial direction, it would weaken interest in finding a peace solution in the Middle East. Perhaps that is also an explanation for not having found a way out of the deadly spiral of violence because non cultural interests predominate and set the terms for the negotiations. That reduces tremendously the understanding of the productivity of culture and the people who live in Israel and in the Palestinian territories. Or to put it in another way, dialogue should not be denied a priori even if no meaningful discussions take place inside the conference room and only the squabble of people outside on the streets can be heard. However, the latter is much preferred to them staying as silent as a grave yard. That would be most terrible.

The human dilemma is recognized by Frederique Chabaud. She asks in her letter of 2002, but what to if an attempted dialogue to stay in touch with people who have been addressed in a critical way fails? She takes "'their' silence in some way (as) terrible proof that such a language cannot be communicated."

What kind of language which cannot be communicated does she mean? Surely if it is impossible to stay in touch by means of dialogue over any period of time, then their minds have been made up already. They shall not listen to acclaimed truths by someone else. They shall not be swayed in what they believe. Already it is predicted in 2010 if Netanyahu would agree to remove some settlers from the 300 000 already in the West Bank, it will come to a small civil war.

Developments on the ground give the settlers and their supporters apparently the Right to argue the way they do. Nothing will persuade them otherwise. If taken further it may provide a more precise example of ‘ontology of silence'. With it she postulates a significant difference exist between language and forms of communication. Like the lake not to be crossed on foot, silence can mean finality. No more words will suffice as everything has been said. If no understanding has been reached, then that is it.

A departure point for understanding what she takes as 'terrible proof', namely that silence of people can be the famous book by George Steiner with the title 'Language and Silence'. He starts with an observation which can startle some when thinking the relationship between Germans and Jews was only one filled with aggression and hatred. Rather the opposite existed according to George Steiner. For the tension between Jews and Germans could be at times a most creative one. In order to comprehend how this relationship could become most destructive as underlined by the Holocaust, he poses in the book a crucial question, namely whether or not art, reflections thereof, can stop someone from committing inhuman acts. How can it be that a man can play the evening before Schubert Lieder on the piano and go the next day into the concentration camp to kill there innocent people? That puzzle he called culture's 'ennui' because he does not find really an explanation. For that tension to become so destructive, something else must have happened.

Peter Weiss in 'Aesthetics of Resistance' describes how the language of command starts to creep into the daily life of Germany as Fascism creeps into power. He observes how his mother becomes more and more silent.

One explanation is that once the language used daily is like in an army only trimmed to follow commands, the other is never addressed as a human being. That means also the human feelings are no longer spoken to and for that matter not allowed to exit. Like the recruits in the army once trained they are malleable and ready to receive orders. They no longer follow their feelings.

Elias Canetti, when observing a soldier standing for hours guard in front of the palace, makes the remark that there you have all the demonstration of power. For what prevents that soldier from simply stepping out of that frozen posture and just walking off? Something invisible keeps him there, in fear, if he does not follow the command.

Being slowly cut off from life implies as well not following spontaneously impulses to protest if some injustice happens. Peter Weiss would describe how adults on their way would just walk on and not intervene even though they would see some children beating up a Jewish kid. It starts with looking away, in the other direction, till conformity brings about that 'terrible silence'.

Many Germans went silent when the Gestapo arrived with the trucks to take away the Jewish people. They had internalized so much fear that it was already transformed into some kind of hatred against those who would bring about so much fear. Finding a scapegoat and other theories can explain such projections used when blaming the others, but not taking responsibility, neither politically or personally as to what happens to others. The extreme egoism of caring only about oneself can only be brought about by cultivating something being greater than just fear. The Jewish person was already identified as a threat to the state insofar Hegel would state in 'Philosophy of Law' a Jewish person never gives his allegiance to the state but remains a Cosmopolitan. If allegiance presupposes a shared interest in common survival, automatically those who do not share that principle and do not give recognition to the state will be at best tolerated, at worst persecuted.

What prevents a person from stepping in-between the Jewish person about to be taken away and the Gestapo made up of men who have forgotten where they came from? Some fear made over time into a collective inhibition by subscribing to the thesis, the state has to look after people, says that human solidarity cannot be counted on anymore. It implies altogether people have been cut off from what Freud called the 'libido', that ‘collective love’ as binding force between all people and not to be mistaken as ‘love’ between two people. Freud would say the libido breaks once people have rationalised too much their lives and entered as a consequence an artificial life of pseudo-security. They entered that world out of fear but if it breaks down, then panic is the consequence. Something has been given up that would enable people to retain a human self-consciousness. Marx said this is only possible if people address each other in a language made up of categories taken from both productivity and creativity. Without culture and economy going together that crucial element to stay in touch with human feelings for oneself and for others would go amiss. It is the task of dialogue to retain that human self consciousness for otherwise people would stay within the system and never be approachable.

For upholding the humane society are crucial the common feelings of being human not merely in one's own eyes, but also in the eyes of others. To this explanation has to be added the subtle point made by the film Shoah when showing soldiers discussing the Jews as they were digging their own mass grave. One soldier says to the other, 'look, they do not even put up a fight when ordered to dig their own grave'. To this the other replies affirmatively as if he had internalized completely Hitler's declaration made in 'Mein Kampf' that a human being is only the one who fights (to echo Heidegger's thesis in 'Time and Being' that only in a fight the true being is shown). He makes a significant remark in order to agree with the first soldier: 'indeed they do not put up a fight; ergo they do not deserve to live'. Silence is more often in such extreme cases proof of a failure to recognize the other as a 'human being'.

This aspect of silence can be taken further. There is this famous saying by Michel Foucault, namely “we have to find the places of silence before the lyrical protest covers them up.” The latter can be taken to mean a representation of feelings, but not a direct expression thereof. Adorno remarked that many soldiers during First World War used poems by Rilke when writing from the front home to their girlfriends. They used the poems as they felt unable to express themselves what they felt and therefore took the expressions of the poet as being more apt to do, so to speak, the job for them.

But there is also the terrible silence of a victim of abuse. Imprisoned by shame and other forces, the real negativity is the realisation of having given up any form of self-protection. Frederique Chabaud does refer to that indirectly in her letter when she writes that there is an opening up of oneself which leaves no self protection in place. She writes in that letter what she has observed through those articles and efforts to come to reason with others:

“You opened your mind; you gave yourself away without protection. This is not fair, but reading your lines, I almost pretend to know where the difficulties will arise: stating the Greek racism in relation to the Muslim minority in comparison to the attitude of the State of Israel, "citizenship subdivided along racial lines", stating "you have the mobility, these people in those camps do not have that same freedom to move", "to defend yourself is one thing, to go beyond that and commit crimes against humanity is quite another political matter", "there are so many regretful incidences and they all make up the tragedy of humanity"... or even stressing that the tension between Germans and Jews was creative even if highly dangerous at the same time". Other examples can be brought forward of a lesson which is no more to be taught, because too late and because the explanatory schemata’s are just protecting everyone to reject the other.”

She reveals here a startling realism by underlining the fact that simply opening up is not enough to reach other people. This is especially the case if attempted in the wish to stay in contact with them through dialogue. More so that will fail if the emphasis upon dialogue is meant to hide the lack of understanding how things work. In addition, all these examples given cannot be taught as they come too late and cannot alter anymore what took place.

6. Human kindness and reason

Before she comes to this proof of silence, Frederique Chabaud asks in her letter of 2002, if a specific "generosity (does not help) to come to terms with reason (Erasmus) and to reach persons in the wish to remain in dialogue with them?"

Her denial of generosity in this context remains to date a puzzle. So also how she comes to uphold ‘silence’ as if an ontology. Then she used it to prove any extended form of reasoning by writing articles or newsletters or else corresponding with specific persons in order to understand the situation was futile. She was already then convinced that people cannot be reached in that way nor would it suffice to stay in contact with them through dialogue. “Such a language cannot be communicated.” This she underlines with a very emphatic declaration, namely: “if I were a Jewish woman, I would never accept the rationalization of my pain and the refraining of my burst of anger or shout - in the desert. I wouldn't listen.”

But why denounce then generosity, especially when trying to show an understanding for the fears of an Israeli because of likely attacks from the other side, but also not forgetting at the same time that the Israeli occupation has put the Palestinian people under siege. There has developed since 2002 that special explosive situation with the people in the Gaza strip trapped. After Hamas had won unexpectedly the elections and later ousted the PLO to rule alone, they have to suffer on top of being cut off from the rest of the world also sanctions.

How strange then that she would demand to know what works rather than engage in dialogue when everyone knows sanctions do not work but send only the wrong messages while allowing for other scams to take place. This was the case with the ‘oil for food’ program administered by the United Nations before the invasion of Iraq and which turned out to be a lifeline for many well off people earning extra money, but no food reaching really those in need in Iraq. And in the case of Gaza Hamas is kept in power by taxing the goods coming in through the tunnels. Why the world decides usually in favour of highly crude and extremely symbolic measures is another discussion but in recognition of how reality works so does human understanding. If not in the short term, there is a chance that in the long run it will make a decisive difference. Naturally there is always the risk of being denounced immediately as if being pro Hamas by showing such understanding, but that misses the point of what is demanded from anyone if intellectual integrity is to prevail. Naming realities and arguing for the sake of upholding reason, means also upholding non violence as basic principle of engagement for peace. Along those lines some differences to what Frederique Chabaud meant then can be made out eight years on.

If interpreted correctly Frederique Chabaud meant a show of generosity does not let people come to terms with reason. Their silence is 'terrible' proof for that. Nor can the debate be restarted once intercultural dialogue has failed.

Instead, so it seems, such bitterness shall prevail that people become inapproachable. They shall not listen, only shout. Shrill shall be their voices. All will acclaim a truth as to what is happening. They move altogether in spaces marked by the absence of human kindness. It has been replaced by a kind of deliberate toughness. They are trained to become like that. But there is a marked difference between those inside of Israel and the Palestinian territories, and those who although on the outside partake by taking sides. The latter are more extreme. It has to do with the mechanism of identification without really knowing what is going on at every location.

Somehow this denial is most familiar when people instead of cooperating with each other, delineate themselves sharply from the other(s) and this in the most formal, equally restrictive way. Perhaps they do that in order to suppress their inherent fear that a solution may be found. As the mother of the Turkish artist Azade Koeker used to say to her daughter, ‘it is one thing to strive for success, quite another to live with it’. The same can be said about the peace process in the Middle East. As long as there is a systematic and structured failure, everyone feels secure in the insecurity as it confirms all negative expectations. It is quite something else if a real peace agreement as been reached and instead of people, the weapons are silenced.

Very interesting would be to find out more why she denies any role to generosity even though she is herself a prime example of someone capable of giving empathy to other people? She may be basing this on own experiences. Presumably she has concluded that a giving nature has many more difficulties, if any chance at all to survive in a society made up of individuals and groups who only take. This can be linked indeed to the problem of egoism. The latter is often denounced by the technocratic generation when viewing those seeking only pleasure and may that be through the arts. A better solution then such denial of any personal pursuit of happiness was proposed by Adorno. In 'Minima Moralia' he writes about the importance to strike a balance between seeking personal happiness and giving to society especially those things and thoughts which are needed to retain the human dimension. Frederique Chabaud herself proves through that letter that she was seeking this stream of humanity. Once found, it can alter one's consciousness and disposition towards other people and then generosity may prevail.

Of course, Adorno cannot be mentioned without reference to what he and Horkheimer had come to conclude towards the end of Second World War in 1944. They published then a book called 'the Dialectic of Enlightenment'. As a matter of fact it was about the failure of the Enlightenment and therefore of reason to bring about an alternative in a society not merely marked by a ‘division of labour’, but ever since Odyssey passed the Sirens a division between work and pleasure. Subsequent rationalisations as if this schism does not matter on how both work and pleasure are viewed have repeatedly hurt Western Society. Basically the two philosophers living at that time in exile posed in anticipation of Fascism being defeated the question, what will happen to human reason when the avalanche of stupidity can still sweep across Europe and intensify xenophobic forces? They anticipated that the latter would not disappear even when Fascism was defeated. Too often attitudes thereof are hidden from the eyes of everyone through a kind of self-denial while blaming only the others for bringing out such negative attitudes in oneself. However, Max Horkheimer had stated already prior to Second World War in his writings that egoism would destroy freedom and thereby prevent the coming to reason. Indeed, without freedom it would be also impossible to give freely and to address the others with reasonable arguments.

Whether or not impossibilities to give freely affects not only individuals but the entire society, that is not the same as saying the system makes people become egoistic insofar as their strive for more money as it matches the profit orientation of all private companies. That then raises the question what role civil society can play? Can it be a corrective to politics and economic interests which end up entering a coalition to exclude all other possibilities, except the only option left, namely to make more profit? If civil society is to be corrective, then only from a position of independence and even then it is doubtful if those forces which driven by own interests allow themselves to be addressed by an appeal to heed the concerns of others. A systematic form of Egoism would rule that out. Therefore, civil society has to stand up especially for those who have real needs but are largely ignored especially because they cannot or fail to defend themselves. This is the other aspect of the same problem when it comes to seeking reasonable solutions through dialogue and in reference to the common task ahead, namely how to bring about a more just society through human practice, generosity included?

Moreover human kindness, the unconditional showing of understanding, is not something to be given up even if it does not work at political level. It still makes a difference when just one soldier at the border crossing lets the pregnant woman pass through quickly rather than forcing her to wait in the heat for five more hours. There are things which make a difference in daily life despite being for many people a real ordeal. It matters to them in the long run if human kindness and not cynicism about human nature prevails. The former is based on optimism and can make things work; the latter negates all possibilities and even tends to silence criticism as if everything is in vain. Clearly such argumentation derives its legitimacy from presumed total negative outcomes. It is a kind of new realism conveyed by those who have grown deeply sceptical due to many disappointments and mishaps. Some of those tones can be detected in her letter.

The critical questions Frederique Chabaud poses here are for one, if reason can be upheld through dialogue and secondly, if those who stay silent right now can be brought to terms with reason through a language in need of being communicated? The latter can be taken as sign of civility i.e. not creating facts on the ground without having consulted the others prior to making the decision to go ahead. Dialogue does include this democratic element of wishing to discuss first various options prior to taking a decision. Her questioning of this possibility to bring others to reason when in despair resonates with a much older saying by Wilhelm Reich who believed if people’s minds are filled with thousand and more worries, they cannot be approached with the demand to think and to act like enlightened people. This would merely over demand them and leave no space for having made up already their minds in accordance with certain argumentations which follow suit developments taking place on the ground.

Of interest is that the philosopher Jürgen Habermas would indeed ascribe to civil society this possibility of playing a corrective role in a democratic sense although he does not say how or if through reason brought about by dialogue. Rather he sees the role as being able to give democratic impulses. If it seeks to be recognized in this role, then civil society and its NGOs have to remain independent from all other forms of entanglements and conflicts of interest. Above all civil interest to give that democratic impulse on how things are debated and decided upon would have to mean upholding at all times a 'public-ness of responsibility'. In addition Habermas points out that the ability of civil society to play this role depends upon the resources and more so upon finding support in movements affecting the entire society e.g. Green Peace responding to the need to protect the Environment.

By itself, civil society would not be able to affect much. But precisely the situations from which Frederique Chabaud departs can be characterized as lacking this public-ness, this open public space for ensuring further going debates about what actions to take to alleviate the situation. This means a lack of dialogue at personal level prevents the coming to reason as the absence of any civil society will leave the individual and groups of people dependent upon other forces able to set the agenda. In extreme situations these are usually the most radical movements making impossible dialogue. And without the existence of civil society people cannot inform themselves independently about what is at stake when parameters are set to define what is possible, what is not. If any dialogue with the Israeli side is ruled out by Hamas, this indicates already where the true dilemma begins even before a search for peaceful solutions could start.

There comes also a crucial point in her argumentation when she states plainly that the human language cannot be communicated. That then draws attention to the existence of a difference between language and communication. It cannot be overcome despite of the wish to reach the others. That poses a new dilemma. It presumes communication takes place but not in accordance with either generosity or reason. Something else has taken the place of a common language accessible to all human beings.

Obviously she assumes in view of what is happening in the Middle East, but not only there, to come to terms with reason is something else needed. What that may be she does not say explicitly but may be deduced from her citing Erasmus. That requires in turn further understanding as to what she means by 'coming to terms with reason'. It cannot be that she perceives reason as if values which are set and need to be followed. Yet it may well be the case that she expresses herself in the way she does to make a point but thereby risks confusing reason with the setting of terms. Somehow that echoes the command of nineteenth century to be reasonable or otherwise be denounced or categorized as insane. Both Kant and Hegel had that derogative labelling of 'otherness' in mind when referring to reason. Michel Foucault attempted with his 'l'histoire de la folie' (The history of insanity or in German "Wahnsinn und Gesellschaft" - insanity and society) to undo this tragic schism based on the same kind of wrong conclusion when identifying someone not being for oneself, then as being against oneself i.e. an enemy.

Erasmus stands indeed for a special kind of human reason and therefore human language. The art historian and specialist of Mexican art, Hans Haufe, pointed out how influential his thoughts were upon a group of Jesuit priests. They were the only ones who safeguarded the Mayas and their culture against total annihilation by the colonisers. Without their efforts nothing would have been preserved.

The realities of today may be a far cry away from such spirit of Humanism, but the efforts undertaken to recognize the cultures of the indigenous people, Nomads, Roma continues in various forms. Yet it is taken a turn by what is happening in France, Italy, Serbia with regards to the Roma being branded as outlaws, criminals, law breakers etc. to justify their expulsion from one EU country to another, from France to Rumania, if not their outright extinction by starting to kill some of them. Since Roma or Gypsies as they were called earlier were persecuted by Hitler’s forces and many of them perished in concentration camps, this tension between those dwelling in one place and those moving about and making even the back of a truck into their private space like others would with their living room, needs to be understood why it can turn into such an aggressive and annihilating one?

7. The political-philosophical level of reflection

Frederique Chabaud makes it very clear that people shall not come to terms with reason (and enter a dialogue), if they have made up already their mind. Emphatically she points out even if she would initially reject as well their argumentation, it cannot be altered especially if affirmed by what is happening on the ground. This preclusion can become a truism insofar no peace agreement in place would mean violence shall escalate still further to transform mere street fights into a full scale war.

Yet there is a major draw back in her letter. She refers to ‘people’ in general. Therefore, she does not distinguish between people moving about in the streets and, for instance, officials who have to assume within institutions responsible positions and make decisions on behalf of others. Of interest is that Jürgen Habermas argues that it is time to give up any reference to people (in German ‘Volk’ but also ‘Menschen’). This needs to be explored further at the philosophical level of reflection. The political implications can be named more clearly by using this reflection to understand the situation and what is possible in any given political circumstance.

Over and again is has been proven in politics that even a radical politician like Netanyahu will modify his original position once in office as Prime Minister of Israel. That does not seem to be the case as of yet i.e. to what extent he will keep his promise to the settlers. Yet he may well end up opposing some of the more radical demands of the settlers. For once in office it becomes clear that Israel's interests cannot be reduced to just a religious cause. The latter is linked to the wish to restore the Holy Land. Practically it would mean an imperial or greater Israel. To sustain it by expanding the settlements in the West Bank with already 300 000 settlers living there, it would jeopardize any peace prospect with the Palestinians even further. They are already upset by the many facts created on the ground by settlers expanding their original settlements to become vast towns like Ariel. The only interesting turn in events is that the Palestinians not under Hamas rule have turned to non violent actions and are creating in turn their own version of facts on the ground. They are planting olive trees to counter the expansion of the settler's towns. The fact that Palestinian have turned towards these highly symbolic but nevertheless in effect non violent forms of protest, it has prompted the international world to put pressure on Israel to take up the peace process once more. This is the case as of September 2010.

Naturally the attempt to arrive at any peace agreement in the Middle East is highly flawed. Every side wishes not so much a stable peace but primarily to find out just how far one go to test the limits of the other. It is not merely a testing of will but what the other can take (swallow) and even when going too far is still unable to mount a formidable challenge or to retaliate. This is an inherent contradiction to any potential peace agreement in the Middle East. The security needs of Israel outweigh until now the concerns for the lives of the Palestinians. It is a highly asymmetrical situation. Once caught in the negativity which goes with David facing Goliath, it installs another type of agreeing to disagree. Such an agreement cannot be the basis of democratic mediation between the Israelis and Palestinians. Rather forces are always set free which have not the strength to bring about a peace agreement, but they do have the capacity to destroy any prospect for such an agreement.

Another factor is that Isarael did contribute to the creation of the Hamas as it promised itself a split in the Palestinian movement would be to their advantage. The fight between Hamas and the follow-up of Arafat's PLO shows that. Any agreement Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas can make is said to be only for half of the Palestinians. That leaves any peace accord already flawed before any step in the direction of a peace agreement can be taken. The last time that seemed possible was between Rabin and Arafat. It failed for two reasons: the unresolved question of Jerusalem and the assassination of Rabin by a religious believer who took the religious law into his own hands. What then to do with this power game aiming to divide in order to rule, or as Sharon would say the Palestinians need to be beaten so much that they cry for mercy.

Interestingly enough during a literary discussion in Athens an Israeli writer who was at the same time an air force pilot touched upon this difference between personal and public level. He pointed out while many had opposed in Israel taking up diplomatic relationships with then West Germany, there is a need for an open channel of communication between states. He conceded that people could not forget what happened during the years of the Holocaust; however, at state level one cannot hold onto one's prejudices even if seemingly justified. This then holds sway over one's mind when in a public position.

In other words, ‘intercultural dialogue’ has many more ramification at institutional and diplomatic level than perhaps what can and does take place between people at personal level. At personal level there can be trust and even love. It makes possible quite another kind of dialogue, one which is more differentiated but also does not forget. This dialogue has to be from person to person, an 'I-you' form of mutual understanding. If that 'other' is missing, things would be driven as in the case of Kierkegaard towards seeking that missing other in God. It would help establish a sort of dialogue, but one kept exclusively to oneself by assuming the real dialogue is only possible with God. As the latter is an absolute concept, it would give meaning to whatever allows the person to transcend personal limitations and hardships and look beyond present circumstances. It is a way of saying man seeks consolation in some unwaivering position even though he is in doubt whether that can be attained and maintained within his own life span. Therefore the dialogue between states is of a third kind and should not be confused with either the personal one or with what has become known as 'interreligious dialogue'.

The political dialogue of the third kind means a method by which to say in contact or communication with that other party even if one would disagree at personal level with that other party completely on account of what happened in the past. Here then can be differentiated between Israel's relationship to post war Germany and the Palestinians. As long as they do not have a state of their own, that third dimension is missing. Israel does not want such a Palestinian state for then the crossing over of its troops when entering the occupied territory would not mean an internal operation for security reasons, but by crossing state borders an act of war. So far this has not been discussed in terms of what Israel not merely fears but would see as handicap as far as operations of its forces are concerned. Naturally it could be argued but Israel did not hesitate to cross over state borders by entering Lebanon in 2006 but then it was a return to a former occupied territory by Israel for nearly twenty years. Besides the rockets launched from the side of Lebanon legitimized Israel when invading as it was meant to stop the launching of further rocket attacks upon its cities.

The question remains, however, how can be reached a peace agreement with Palestinians not yet a state? The tricky question in need to be resolved is exactly this: how to give birth to such a state while ensuring at the same time such a state can maintain the commitment towards peace which both sides make once they sign up to such a peace accord. Definitely it would have to overcome the internal split of the Palestinians as well and any final agreement in need to be preceded by the creation of a Palestinian state. In turn this would only be possible if Israel withdraws both troops and settlers from the occupied territory. With 300 000 settlers alone in the West Bank that is inconceivable never mind the unresolved question of Jerusalem.

Taking this as an example, the political philosophical reflection of the impossible can only mean one thing: the posing of impossible demands. Only at this level is it possible to talk in any consistent way in reference to peace and what it takes to realize this. Naturally there will be many oppositions to this while the realists would never accept such a dialogue since deemed as being impossible. That is a contradiction in the term 'dialogue' itself since it would require reaching out and going beyond self interests in order to understand the other. This was very much the content of the letter written by Frederique Chabaud in 2002. She attempted to approach the impossibilities from another direction and concluded this will not work as well. It leaves communication subject to failure since the language spoken does not bring the people to terms with reason. The 'impossible dialogue' as one fulfilling the peace dimension would simply elude them. That then leaves just one possibility, namely a disturbed form of communication leading on to still further misunderstandings as understanding is limited to what works, what not. If people are not convinced a wider application of such understanding would allow them to share the land and live together in peace, then they will stick to the limitations as imposed by a state heavily guarded and ready to defend even occupied territory as if its own territory. It is, therefore, worthwhile to take up what Habermas calls 'the pathology of communication'.

a) The pathology of communication (Habermas)

Again it would take quite the imagination to examine whether or not the European Union does perform well. Among others aspects it is crucial that Europe leaves behind the colonial past and avoids post-colonial types of subjegation of other people. Here Greece may prove to be a case in point insofar as being driven into over consumption, it will help the export industry of EU member states like Germany, France, Sweden etc. but not either Greece or a common economic governance of Europe. Colonisation of otherwise free subjects will not help improve relationships to people whose culture and therefore knowledge differ from any European orientation. Rather it would be detrimental if Europe would not acknowledge that these 'other' people base their approach to life, work and society on a very different set of assumptions as to how they can and want to survive in a world not necessarily determined by Europe. Thus it does matter how Europe handles cultural diversity.

Above all it matters that the European Commission and its associated partners are able to take up dialogues with the other side. The latter has been called various names, including 'Third World', 'developing world', and even in the case of both India and China global players. If this relationship is to be structured then the European Union has to acknowledge the contradictions inherent in the concept of 'intercultural dialogue'. As pointed out by Frederique Chabaud, the concept does not do justice to other discourses.

One prime reason for the need to develop another terminology and therefore understanding has been given by economist Louis Baeck. For instance, 'globalisation' is understood very differently in the Islamic world. There will be no communication possible with this other world if the European discourse sticks to only American and European references. He states urgent reform is needed as the globalization model is conveyed by a neo-liberal idea which does not give any importance to social justice. (For further information see http://poieinkaiprattein.org/culture/cities/framework-conditins-for-cultural-planning-the-human-matrix-by-hatto-fischer/15-globalization/

Stepping out of this intellectual confinement will hardly be possible if Europe fails already within its own domain to valorize cultural diversity. Michel Foucault suggested crucial would be to reflect Europe's cultural self understanding both from within and from outside of Europe. In effect this would mean an anthropological and ethnological dimension has to be added whenever cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue is being referred to. How fruitful that can be was shown by Freud using Frazer's book 'the Golden Bough' to write his text on 'Totem and Tabu' just as Myrdal's 'Asian Drama' gave a first comprehensive insight into the social and economic complexity prevailing in Asia before India started to develop its economy. All along Adorno stipulated the only self-understanding being possible in Europe after 1945 is that nothing is self-understood. Yet real differences are not perceived as stated by Frederique Chabaud. Rather European policy assumes all discourses can be subsumed under the term 'intercultural dialogue'.

Europe in 2010 is ruled more by fear to lose welfare, jobs and services in face of the economic crisis rather than following up a true understanding of culture as meaning the willingness to share. The fear is explained due to society's changing composition caused by the influx of many foreigners. Instead of practicing intercultural dialogue with them by learning among others to speak different languages, all exclusive stances are adopted. Little do these movements realize that a national identity reinforces the loss of identity. Freud explained in a short article called 'die Verneinung' (the denial) that personal identity is given up for the sake of products receiving the stamp 'Made in Germany'. Ownership plays here a decisive role. Hegel put it bluntly: a person without property has no identity.

All the more cannot be explained the re-nationalisation of EU programmes. The retraction by member states like Holland, France but also Germany to national identity has given a field day to xenophobic forces. In Greece the crisis linked to a huge state deficit has prompted the creation of such movements as the Patriotic Front. The latter is a vague attempt to rally Greeks against the fear that the funds made available by the IMF and the EU shall be given only to the banks. Ideologies convey always half truth. That leads to a gross misunderstanding of the crisis and distorts the discourse. While some focus merely on what caused this huge deficit others do not wish to discuss the possible options for the government to act within given confinements in a responsible way. Rather generalisations lead to rejection of the entire system and just making own demands without reflecting the repercussions upon the rest of the society if fulfilled e.g. truck owners strike in Greece to remain a closed shop. Instead of attempting to find sound solutions e.g. the Irish model of everyone participating in taking stock of expenses, top-down measures reproduce themselves in a whole array of 'irrationalities'. The latter is marked by self denial or people as much as organisations unwilling to alter course. As if they cannot anticipate the consequences of their actions, they keep on demanding solutions which no one can pay for.

At times the national stance adopted by countries like Germany is interpreted as a wish not to give up power and the privileges which go with such power. Habermas argues forcefully against that. There are too many issues and challenges in the world which cannot be handled alone e.g. climate change. A similar line of argumentation is adopted by EU President Barroso who continues to point out only together can Europe have a voice in the world. Yet that appeal is laughed at or taken as a further indication that the bureaucrats in Brussels wish a superstate. If realized, it would leave citizens without any voice. This fear prompted already the rejection of the EU Constitutional Treaty by France and Holland. Repeatedly national politicians play on this fear. The Euro-skeptics in the UK can vote at least 36 delegates into the European Parliament in order to follow up their anti-Europe politics. The reverse is also true. Simon Mundy in 'Coming Home' talks about MEPs being schizophrenic; they would talk internationally while in Brussels but at home only in reference to local interests. Consequently people would not be informed by them nor given insights into issues affecting Europe right across the board.

National identity as overriding principle seems to blend out completely the urban reality lived by people in all European cities but only there. Also the countryside has changed. There many migrant workers fill the gaps created by all others fleeing to the city. Nikos Stavroulakis in his story about Thessaloniki before and after the disaster in Asia Minor in 1921 (when Greek troops on the promise of the British government that they would be helped but then did not, entered Turkey to liberate areas formerly Greek like the city of Smyrni now Izmir) described the city as follows: before many cultures lived simultaneously together, but once a Greek stamp was put on the city, it wiped out all cultural diversity. And what was not achieved then was completed by the Nazis when they deported the Jews of Thessaloniki by train to Auschwitz. Upholding diversity in cities would require the European Union to shift focus from the regional to the urban level but unfortunately the structural fond, the largest next to the agricultural one, remains fixed to the concept of a region and in liaison with federalist but also regionalists orientated towards a homogeneity of both physical and cultural space e.g. Catalonia asserting everywhere the Catalonian culture even to the detriment of writers living in Barcelona and writing in Spanish, not in the Catalonian language.

For EU policy makers to use of 'intercultural dialogue' is at best confusing. Most of the time the media adds to this impression by confusing issues and even worse transforming them into media sensations. They do that for the sake of making money or wishing to enhance their influence by increasing their mass circulation. At the same time, regional papers of high quality face suddenly difficulties not merely due to financial reasons but because of possible take-overs or a new will of the shareholders. Jürgen Habermas discusses very much the case faced by the regional paper 'die Süddeutsche'. The same can be said about the BBC. With people in the Arab world no longer listening so much to Western media, a shift of priority in the wake of the Iraq war became obvious when the BBC diminished its network of local correspondents reporting from the ground and closing down several language specific services e.g. in Greece, in order to invest in a new television channel to be directed at an Arab audience. The shifting in world power can be reflected onhand of this development of the global media. CNN with its 24 hour news broadcast was a trend setter. Today the USA has to grapple with the power of FOX news and the like since insignificiant incidences can be blown up into out of proportions sensations as much as real issues kept below the radar screen.

Distortions of the 'truth' are common practices. A reporter for Vanity fair can generalize in an article about the Greek financial crisis that everyone blames the IMF despite the prime minister Papandreou stating in his speech at the opening of the Thessaloniki Fair in September 2010 that no one else is to be blamed for the huge state deficit but 'ourselves'. A stigma if untrue will stick while a diffearentiated point has not chance of being noticed. The same goes for an article in the International Herald Tribune published 13.9.2010. It deducing out of the enthusiasm of youngsters, including the daughter of the famous flimmaker Schlöndorf, to join in celebrations after victories of the German football team at the world cup that they have no longer any hesitation to celebrate Germany par excellance. By over exaggerating this enthusiam and transforming it into a sign of rising Nationalism, the article ignores the fact that the German team was praised for its mixture of players, some of the best players having either come most recently to Germany or else having parents who were not born in Germany. But what may suit one kind of argumentation, can easily be forgotten when trying to make another point. That becomes most obvious when things are claimed even though it is not substantiated by what is happening in reality. The media is bound to play its game within the confines stipulated by their owners or share holders.

At the same time, institutions of various kinds undertake their own public relations work. The Olympic Committee, one of the richest organisations in the world despite being just a non preofit NGO, operates on this principle of restricting sponsors so that their brand takes on extra value. Huge profits are made out of granting this franchise with the committee taking all the money while the local organisers are left to burden all costs and incurring costs. That is global business at the expense of any local community where for a short time these global business enterprises touch down. The debts for Athens 2004 can in part account for all the financial mess Greece and the world became aware of when it was no longer possible to close the eyes to what was most obvious, namely money was spend without any clear accountability and this not by some individuals, but by the state itself since a prime loan meant also a prime profit for a certain group who would steer the process of lending and capitalizing everything in a certain direction. Since these financial tansactions evade the normal citizen there is also little control over such matters. It leaves almost everybody at mercy of these coercive financial forces and specific interests linked with them insofar as they are in constant search for new business opportunities to lavish on borrowed money without having to face the costs they incurr. The Olympic Games is such a racketing of profits made at the cost of so much more. It includes as Athens proved unused Olympic venues as evidence of squandered money for the sake of vanity to appear in the limelight of world attention for just two weeks when the Olympics take place.

Another case are international institutions such as the United Nations. In substance they may differ from international companies like BP but the logistics and the use of an elite with its own network is similar. That includes as well such organisations as the world bank. Always at risk is that people end up making a lot of money off good causes e.g. the oil for food program during the years when Saddam Hussein was still in power in Iraq and one sanction after another was leveled against this country. It supposed to help the children and the poor in the country who were suffering due to the sanctions but in reality this program made a lot of people wealthy as their incomes were extremely high. That discrepancy between how money is earned and how it is distributed is also entailed in United Nations or development officials living in villas while the rent goes to the war lords. That is an absurd way to finance those who are a cause of the very problem meant to be resolved by having the United Nations and other aid agencies present in that corner of the world.

All this is to say 'international dialogue' under these circumstances is too vague a concept to deal effectively with what should be the aim, namely to enhance and to further cultural diversity as basis of dialogue. As to the UNESCO resolution in support of cultural diversity, the implementation of this basic principle is not that clear. It might facilitate some understanding of the term when citing the Polish journalist Kapuscinski who would argue that every particular culture knows how to communicate with the others. Thus dialogue depends upon sustaining these different cultures and more so to protect them against the kind of disturbances by global business intervening locally by reversing the terms. Since such distortions of the terms goes hand in hand with a communication and economic development which destroys diversity, the homogeneization of the market one reason for that, the risidual thereof shall be fear. If this steady loss of diversity is not taken care of or countered, then intercultural dialogue as key element of EU cultural policy shall fail not only at daily but equally in decisive moments at international level i.e. where Europe could make a difference by taking a more substantial stand. The reasons for such a failure and short sightedness can be found already in Frederique Chabaud's letter. Her critical standpoint with regards to the concept of 'international dialogue' entails exactly a need for quite another review of EU cultural policy than what has been forthcoming either by the European Commission or else by different kinds of advisors e.g. KEA or ECOC policy and study groups or organisations like Action Culture Europe and the Platform for Intercultural Europe.

Jürgen Habermas reflects upon one factor: the lack of reason due to a distortion of publicness by the media. In describing the role the media does play in avoiding issues or else in promoting some politician standing basically for a wrong development path, he speaks about a 'pathology of communication'. [8] According to Habermas this is the case with Murdoch as well as with Berlusconi. While the former has thrown his full weight behind certain politicians to have them be elected, the latter has transformed the entire media landscape so that there is no longer objective news, but info-tainment replacing every kind of serious discussion about politics. Umberto Eco went so far as to characterize this development as people having no longer any other interest but whether or not the spectacle will continue. This form of distraction can mean according to Chris Torch that people are locked through the media into a certain mind set. Subsequently they will not expect anything else but also nothing less but this kind of info-tainment to distract them from other, more serious matters.

No doubt the peace process can only be kept going if mutual understanding is furthered and not misunderstandings intensified. Here the media can play a huge role to keep a distance from propaganda. To retain the trust that the information is authentic is no simple task. In Belfast the journalist Bernard Conlon maintains one of the problems of communication about Europe and related affairs is that people no longer believe in what is coming out of Brussels. Hence own structures for communication need to be created before the intake of relevant information can be trusted. The mistrust is itself an indication of people split into various camps with each of them encapsulated in their own world view and assumptions about the ‘others’. Again it would reaffirm what Frederique Chabaud said in her letter about this significant difference between what is the ‘own’ information and what belongs to all the others not to be trusted.

But to come back to Habermas ‘pathology of communication’, it is an interesting term since it suggests that underneath the surface prevail misgivings and other forms of inhibitions. That can add up to blocking and distorting communication, if not making 'open communication' impossible. Frought with misunderstandings, communication is experienced at best as a kind of technocratic language which has been cleaned of all kinds of disturbances. By not really talking about the issues openly, their unresolved natures are capable of triggering off the worst fears in a troubled European mind.

The real loss of dialogues amounts to a 'pathology of communication' in which people no longer can reflect in what they understand and experience in real life. This leads to a split in official discourses as portrayed by the media and what would be a true dialogue. Of interest is here what Menuhin stated about the difference between a child listening to a mother singing and all the lies adults tend to spread while talking too loosely:

“Music does not lie. Speech is often insufficient, the written text can lack precision, and the printed text is often even deliberately devious. Nature has done things well in making the child know the civilizing truth of the singing voices of his mother and father, before discovering adults’ prejudices, hypocrisy and lies. It is also a good thing that art norms (play) should precede the norms of daily survival, because the latter alone can only cause the cruel death of sublime immortality.” [9]

b) No one has the Right to impose ideas upon others – the Right to speak and the Right to remain silent

There is another approach to this concept of reason and what it would mean to bring people to reason. Jürgen Habermas speaks about 'the reason of public-ness'. [10] He means in terms of society and politics what moral impulses are set free to guide developments and decision making processes? These impulses have to be articulated in public if to be effective. This is why the philosopher refers to intellectuals in Europe as they are the ones who have earned the Right to raise the moral voice. Such articulation must be done in consideration of possible conflicts especially if people feel something is being imposed upon them in one or another way.

By the same token Frederique Chabaud would maintain that no one has the Right to impose a relationship upon the other, even if love is in play. By invoking such a Right she declares a wish to stay free from impositions of all kinds but then what to do if a person is not being imposed upon but challenged by another way of thinking about such crucial issues as peace in the Middle East?

When Melina Mercouri initiated the European Capitals of Culture in 1985 she too acclaimed no one has the Right to impose his or her ideas upon others. Rather Europe must be united out of respect of its diversity. That presupposes the possibility of culture to bring about dialogue. Practically it would mean organising such meetings in which differences can be discussed. In such public debates it would be possible to show what differences they make when being upheld. That is quite the opposite when real differences cannot be discussed openly or even worse silenced by the sheer power of institutions.

By way of extrapolation, it can be wondered after reading such a letter if what she claims does not tend towards affirming something else than mere talking? What would Frederique Chabaud say to the thesis that in the absence of public debate there is asserted a false truism claiming ‘actions speak louder than words’? That is a perpetual misunderstanding both in politics and in life. Already Shakespeare exposed the falseness of that truism by asking in Hamlet ‘should the actions suit the words or the words the actions?’ A similar observation was made by Jean Pierre Faye but for quite another reason. In his analysis of the 'Totalitarian language' he departs from a strange phenomenon. He notes suddenly there spring up everywhere in Germany after First World War so-called 'Tat-Kreise' (circles of deeds). This was prior to the rise of Hitler but lead directly to Fascism creeping first into power, before seizing it. It was a common sentiment amongst people politicians would merely talk, but do nothing. They wanted to see actions or 'deeds'. To them Hitler was an exception and more so believable in their terms because he did not merely promise jobs, but created them by having constructed first of all the autobahn. They only failed to ask in which direction all of this would lead.

Thus any criticism of efforts to bring about a dialogue should be attentive to such negative tendencies. Language is needed to reflect what is being done. There is no point of playing out action against words or for that matter what cannot be said against what needs to be said. Discussions are needed fore mostly in public spaces so that everyone can question as Bart Verschaffel would put it the truth being acclaimed.

In short, reflections have to be upheld independently in language from actions. For only once things are put into words they begin to exist (Max Aufischer). Without words, it would not be possible to know what is happening in reality. But to understand the meanings of words, whole sentences are needed and more so a theory-practice reflection based on making experiences. The true dilemma in language is, therefore, not the action itself, but how things are named. In economics, it differs if politicians speak about the deplorable situation of many more people being made unemployed by an economy becoming dysfunctional. The same phenomenon of unemployment can be called by managers in a wish to hide the obvious an organisational adaptation to a slowing down of economic growth. The same applies to efforts wishing to call going to war a humanitarian mission (Joschka Fischer about the bombardment of Kosovo) even though it is an act of war. There is entailed an ethical dimension in how things are named. The dispute about what Israelis settlers do compared to what Hamas militants are up to is reflected itself in that controversial term of 'terrorism'. If everything were to be reduced to only actions and then rationalized to fit the agenda of the day just to appear successful or legitimized, then certainly no dialogue would be possible to uphold reason in such a situation. But the freedom of expression is also a matter of being free to articulate doubts about all these kinds of legitimizations if it leads only to war or to just killing to send another chilling message. Everyone has know what is happening on the ground but also what is done to ensure that the impossible cannot be realized, namely lasting peace. This pertains above all to man at war more with himself than with any other person.

c) The dispute about values or how to challenge things

One of the problems not handled by Frederique Chabaud in her letter is the dispute about values. Everyone has made that experience of how difficult it is to discuss values and more so to change them. Cornelius Castoriadis was even of the opinion that 'values cannot be discussed for they are set and if anyone tries to change them, then it leads to conflict, if not to war'. Consequently besides what can silence people, there has to be added the question, why discussions are suddenly cut off and people no longer wish to be addressed? Presumably in the process some mechanisms have been triggered off to prompt such a reaction. These mechanisms involve institutional settings making possible the triggering off highly artificial reactions even though at this moment of a dispute ending the dialogue everything seems to be taken personal. That is highly deceptive.

The case is given when someone feels insulted but what was said by that person to trigger off of such a response. Even though it seems to be of personal nature, upon a closer look the reaction comes due to an official role having been assumed and therefore 'insult' occurs within a given institution. For instance, a strong reaction comes from the side of a state official if he feels that he is not respected sufficiently. As a matter of fact meant is not so much the person but the authority of the state the person wishes to embody and convey to anyone else. Even a Greek with work experience in Germany but now back in Athens and working in gasoline station would wish a similar strong state so that his employer would pay im regular and not one month three days later, another month one week later and the next time not at all but force him to wait for the payment till the next month.

Hegel stated in his 'Philosophy of Law' if a citizen would not address the policeman in the street with a formal 'Sie - you' but with a personal 'Du - you', that he would not recognize the state and thereby insult the policeman. Not only does this ignore the fact that the policeman is there to serve the citizen, but it suggests no challenge by a citizen is possible even if he feels the power exercised by a policeman goes too far i.e. there is an abuse of power at hand. Since both citizen and policeman face each other in a public space i.e. the street, any truth claimed by the one or the other should is possible to be questioned. Yet the institutional role assumed by the policeman gives him a definite advantage and here lies a misunderstanding. For if it is not possible to challenge that institutional role assumed by that policeman, then he can feel especially insulted if someone dares to challenge him while exercising his power. That can have serious consequences for the citizen especially if the policeman interprets over and beyond breaking the law an unwarranted challenge to his authority e.g. not just a fine for false parking but a further charge for not complying with the law.

Feeling insulted is used by civil servants as an excuse not to deal with the formal request of a citizen e.g. to have a Right to pension. This feeling insulted goes beyond just official roles and can become a cultural trait. Greek men if challenged by a woman driver can easily become wild i.e. highly aggressive. A bad word or sign with the hands can provoke easily violent behavior where before it could have been easily avoided by knowing how to play theatre and therefore skilled in using gestures to say something definite but also to defuse the situation. Likewise can also the opposite be the case: a woman screamed at by a man she really hurt by being to him unfaithful despite having let him know she was faithful will take his scream of pain to be an insult to her self esteem and stop the relationship as if she was waiting for a mere excuse to end it.

In all cases of people feeling to be insulted there plays pride a role in distorting the situation. Pride but also arrogance leads to ignoring that the other wanted to challenge not merely the values, but the beliefs and convictions which go with them. A challenge is not a threat but an invitation to be together honest in a way that allows the working out of the difference or the problem in need to be resolved. Such false responses to challenges appear to lead almost automatically to still more conflicts with others. Consequently any challenge requires still further comprehension of the situation at hand.

Brendan Kennelly in the introduction to his epic poem 'Judas' speaks about one most difficult thing, namely 'to unlearn learned hatred'. He links it not to indoctrination received in a training camp for terrorists in the Far East, but to an overall education and socialization process which prompts people to convert their prejudices into convictions. That can take place in any European country, including Ireland. Lately Sarkozy has set a further example in advancing such prejudices against the Roma by methods of 'fear mongering' equally practiced in Rom and Italy e.g. when a Roman camp outside of Napoli was attacked by right wing hooligans. The flare up of such violence based on racial and ethnic discrimination is a well known phenomenon. Whenever Roma made the appearance, people feared their chickens in the barn or their children were no longer safe. Having experienced the Roma in childhood as lovers of freedom and hating to settle down, they are misunderstood and mistreated as the Nomads of Europe. Their very freedom poses already a challenge to those seeking security, safety and success in well established jobs and homes while carrying much less what that costs if not also what losses in identity this succumbing to the system entails. Once these prejudices have been made into convictions, Brendan Kennelly says they become in reality such absolute beliefs that if challenged by others, then that is taken as an insult.

On the other hand, if no differentiation is made between a pragmatic and an absolute challenge then no Robin Hood like figure has ever appeared in the history of that society. To recall Robin Hood was considered to be an outlaw by opposing a king who had claimed power in the absence of the real king. At pragmatic level, Robin Hood went against his abuse of power by robbing the rich to give to the poor who suffered under the unjust system. At absolute level, he did not act illegally as he aimed to restore the rightful king to the throne by upholding his power in his absence. This difference between the two levels is important to understand. Often those who claim to imitate Robin Hood by robbing supermarkets and hand a few items on the way out to other homeless or poor people, leave out that other level of law meant to uphold civil society and a morality of justice.

Interestingly enough, Greece as society does not know in its history a figure like Robin Hood. Due to the presence of the Orthodox Church and consequently the Orthodox religion prevailing in everyday life there is no distinction made between pragmatic and absolute level. That leads even to further misunderstanding when the challenge is made in written form. For the very act of writing is taken to mean an absolute step has been taken. It ends any possibility to question ongoing practices or a way of doing things even though the point of Mark Twain's 'Huckleberry Finn' was to say to a society holding slaves and treating them like property just because everyone says this is right does not make it be right. A collective reasoning may be wrong as well as any individual can make mistakes.

Another example of the same phenomenon was given by the psychologist Piaget who compared Swiss with German children in their reactions when they found out that one of their parents had been unfaithful to the other partner despite both praying to the children love and marriage means being faithful. While the German children rejected both parents and the moral law after they learned about the act of unfaithfulness, the Swiss children started to see their parents with more human eyes while they put the moral law above their parents. They did not reject in contrast to the German ones either the parents or the law. One explanation for this difference in reaction may be that German children are educated in terms of Idealism so that anything which exists must also be enacted upon. This notion is entailed in Kant saying one should act in a way that the principles behind one's actions should be such that they can be made into a general law holding for all. As long as people are proned to believe only in actions and not in words reflecting intentions but also dreams and many other things, the concrete existence of things will dominate and thereby blend out that critical tension between the pragmatic and absolute level.

That difference is equally of relevance when people in official posts do not allow any challenge to how they exercise power and more so use apparently self evident claims as being German or Greek as if truisms not to be questioned. Usually they take things immediately to the extreme as if an absolute. Moreover they can never identify themselves with the absolute as if above all other people. Consequently intercultural dialogue can take place only once this real difference exists and the morality of justice holds for all.

Since insult is reason enough to no longer speak with the other, it is really no wonder when all attempts to come to terms to reason fail. Rather efforts are made to cut off the challenger from all forms of communication. It is like sending the person into exile as the worst form of punishment (Dostoevsky). Socrates did not go into exile but preferred instead death at his own hands while Empedocles did not return even when the Polis which had originally exiled him wanted him to return. But he too had difficulties emancipating himself from the slave-master relationship and could only do so by jumping into the Etna on Sicily.

d) Which argumentation shall prevail - life as endurance test

Doubts about one's freedom seem to be allowed but just. Interesting is that Frederique Chabaud seems to suggest there is nothing which can alleviate the situation. Her absolute, equally negative proof is the silence of others. Apparently no communication can reach them not even a show of generosity. Yet it would be irrational to deny man any sense of freedom even when in jail. Alone Nelson Mandela is proof enough that this cannot be upheld. He demonstrated a human kindness which can take down those prison walls. At the same time, he stayed in dialogue even with his prison guards in order to find a way to stay in touch with reality. Exactly this notion of staying in touch with reality is the importance of dialogue. Frederique Chabaud does not seem to grasp or to understand this when wishing to point out the limits of dialogue.

Palestinians have shown a remarkable endurance despite all hardships imposed upon them by the Israelis. All the more it is of interest, equally admirable that a humane spirit is kept alive. Especially Jad Salman, artist of the younger generation, maintains that the best response to the Israeli method of occupation is to react first of all as a human being and only second as a Palestinian.

If anything works when in opposition or facing occupation, then a sophistication of the simple. It is like holding complexity in an open hand. Ready to reach out it does not mean ignoring reality. This attitude has altered the Palestinian movement. Now they too and not only the settlers create facts on the ground. The Palestinians do that by not going to war but by planting olive trees. It is both an effective and equally a powerful protest against the encroachment of further settlements upon the land of their ancestors. In this way something has become explicit in the Middle East by 2010. It has given above all greater validity to the Palestinian's wish for their kind of peace, namely a betterment in their living conditions while leaving Israel alone. There is no need to threaten Israel in its existence. Whether the creation of a Palestinian state shall be able to guarantee peace i.e. give the security Israelis they need while the Palestinians can go their own way under very clear conditions, remains to be seen.

Israel could repeatedly in the past violate previously made agreements or ignore even resolutions by the Security Council of the United Nations since they could doubt that the Palestinian have something like a state in place. As this is translated into a binding power to uphold a treaty once signed, this doubt meant in effect the Palestinian side had no reliable authority or government to ensure such an agreement. This is only possible when political decisions at the top can be substantiate by non-violent actions. Peace means afterall a wish to go ahead economically rather than continue the Jihad meaning either total victory or Martydom. Naturally how to handle both the demands of the settlers and the resolute will of the Hamas to uphold the Jihad or 'Holy War' is more than a thorn in the flesh of everyone. Precisely which argumentation shall prevail can make all the difference in being able to sustain if it comes at all to a new peace agreement such new conditions of peace in the Middle East.

Thus what is 'intercultural dialogue' if it becomes the equivalent of the politically correct and real differences glossed over by an appeal to invent a new diplomacy. Frederique Chabaud describes in her letter it as "an other one" and therefore a part of the "new instruments of reflection" which have been invented at EU level around 2002. In substance this invention is based on an unqualified appeal: "but please go ahead, now, create, dare and open yourself." Rightly so she asks but who would dare to open him- or herself and stand there without any self protection? Transposed upon the Middle East, difficulties reside not only in Israelis seeking self-protection before anything else while Palestinians remain unprotected, but that Israelis wish a kind of defense system which amounts to over protection. The fact that Israel holds nuclear bombs underlines this fact. Even worse is that Israel exempts itself from the non proliferation treaty as it refuses to acknowledge to have any nuclear weapons.

By isolating itself from the rest of the world, and that is implied by not upholding international agreements, Israel hovers in a position of self-isolation when justifying its position as seeking an exemption from the rule, in order to be able to defend itself. Again over-protection is not the same as self-protection as self-defense is not given when 1967 was a turning point with regards to occupying new territory to facilitate the expansion of settlements but also meant to tap into rare resources like water. The way Israel defines its security needs is clearly linked to its way of survival: a high standard of living as exemplified by the lavish swimming pool the Arief settlement has. When compared to the living standards of the Palestinian just a dirt road away, it is one thing to deride Palestinians as if incapable in the eyes of many Israelis, another to see how a different culture and way of living cannot unfold under occupation and tutelage.

While the world wanted to give in 1948 the Jewish people a permanent home in Palestina especially after what happened during the Holocaust, it was again European colonial policy which made possible one solution at the expense of the other side. The Palestinian refuges in camps in Lebanon and elsewhere testify to this fact that while Israelis could establish themselves in permanent homes, countless Palestinians are without such a notion of a home where they can enjoy their own Rights as human beings and as citizens of a state of their own making. Only now Lebanon is moving ahead, for example, to grant Palestinians working permissions, that is more than 60 years later. People forced to live under extreme conditions can easily become extreme. It does not justify violence for showing an understanding is more a need to show what consequences both the decision of 1948 to establish the state of Isarael had and what needs to be done to alleviate, if not more so to improve upon the situation in the Middle East.

Showing such understanding is considered to be a sign of generosity. It is also condemned once misunderstood as a justification of violent actions. Or if that is not the case, then it is deemed as being highly unrealistic. Frederique Chabaud adds to the second aspect the fact that this will not help to bring people to terms of reason.

What about generosity in terms of not merely showing love for other people, but as an act which makes possible love between people? Dostoevsky described in the nineteenth century the existence of the 'Idiot'. He is one because he gives love to others and does not seek anything in return. In the end he finds himself being excluded by the two he brought together and who fell in love. This is because those two become entangled in methods to exist on the basis of a mutual interest to make it in society regardless of what is happening to others. Their egoism goes naturally against love for others. As a matter of fact they do everything which goes directly against his generosity to give love to everyone and this without preconditions. The latter is only the case if one enters the exchange principle not merely on the market but in all human and social relationships.

Marx said already by entering the exchange principle, it would destroy memories and with it the interest in how things are made. Once something has been bought, the act of consumption erases any interest for the side of production. If that is carried over and imposed upon human and social relationships, then it would destroy any chance for dialogue and even worse the empathy all need as prerequisite for any dialogue.

What remains in such a case is that everyone uses according to Frederique Chabaud mere "explanatory schemata’s (which) are just protecting everyone to reject the other." It would mean in hard pressed situations doubt is left out. Rather the own position is asserted with a certainty as to who is the enemy. This certainty is fed by blaming the others for causing so much if not direct pain, then anxiety due to the situation remaining insecure. No explanation, not attempt to evoke an understanding for the other side will do. The incomprehensible is not a lack of understanding but a resolution what one suffers is enough. It is a stand taken and upheld by not seeking any further theory to explain the impasse in the Middle East.

Frederique Chabaud adds emphatically to explain this impasse: "If I were a Jewish woman, I would never accept the rationalization of my pain and the refraining of my burst of anger or shout - in the desert. I wouldn't listen." That refusal to listen would mean an end to any dialogue. It explains when borders and limitations are reached insofar as people can deal with problems only up to a certain point. After that communications can and does break down.

Once human reason no longer prevails, but a kind of argumentation linked to this certainty as to who is the enemy, then along with this closing of the minds to mark a resolute stand goes an escalation of ugly words and accusations till yet another war breaks out. There is no legitimacy to be just violent out of fear not to be able to exist if one gives in buch an inch, but that is exactly the funny part in this escalation. Any appeal to preserve a chance of peace goes unheard because no model of explanation will do. There is only the rule of the exemption as if there is no need to abide to any rules. It leaves the situation in the Middle East in a highly arbitrary, equally unjust state with violence but the outcome of not knowing how else to communicate ones outer insecurity and inner fear.

Since Frederique Chabaud mentions no argumentation will do when at the core of interests everything has been decided already, something needs to be said with regards to such hopelessness. Communication is not possible if underlying assumptions cannot be challenged. There has to be a willingness to see if things can work differently i.e. water supply evenly distributed. Agreements must be negotiable and therefore independent of what kind of peace is being hoped for by different interest groups.

Most likely the argumentation linked to a never clearly defined concept of peace is why the peace process fails repeatedly. The very failure gives certainty that one's stand even if negative is the right one. The others will never abide to any agreement made so what is the point of agreeing in substance. Practically it attests to the fear that if a peace agreement would be reached uncertainty would increase since no one would know what this means in real terms. It is better to stay on the save side, that is the sceptical or worse cynical one. Out of that results as well the refusal to accept any criticism. But by no longer listening to what is being said this negative resistance leaves but one option: 'silence'. It attests to the fact that there is no human strength is left to uphold a language which could bring the others to one's own terms of reason. That means the lack of communication begins already in this human weakness or in having given up the search for other political options aiming to regain in human strength i.e. conviction human beings can be trusted and the others will see me primarily as a human being and not as an enemy. If everyone contributes to regaining that strength, it would let everyone step into the stream of humanity to reach like all rivers fed through their countless tributes the sea. This would be in the Middle East an identity made up of diverse cultures, that of the Nomads included, and would weaken the need for powerful states with secret police and a strong army to secure its border. Instead a civil society across the Arab world would nourish a dialogue which includes the Israeli point of view and therefore take note that mental survival is above all a matter of practicality but in a most sophisticated way. The latter would mean an ability to adapt to changing situations by including the needs of the others when setting out on this new road.

8. The situation in 2010

In 2010 there can be witnessed a movement like the 'Tea Party' in the United States or the ousting of the Roma in France. All that feeds of an oversimplified enemy picture. It serves a double purpose. By ousting strangers from within one's own society it is hoped that all problems shall go away. The more simple the picture, the easier it is to rally the troops around such a prejudiced, equally vindictive image of the other(s). Above all it alleviates from the necessity to talk with the others prior to judging them.

Of course these developments in 2010 are no where close to coming to terms with 'reason'. Instead people withdraw and become in their isolation easy prey for populist and right wing slogans suggesting simple solutions e.g. ousting of all foreigners in order to be only amongst ourselves. Here powerful mechanisms of exclusion are at work. They prevent in effect any chance for a fruitful dialogue. Frederique Chabaud referred to that in her letter written in 2002 and meant a life filled with half truths.

Once no real public debate takes place but is replaced instead by a kind of 'fear mongering' (as extension of a media cultivating a 'pathology of communication' according to Jürgen Habermas), mediation between individuals and society becomes most difficult, if not impossible. If that becomes a trend, society would risk being replaced by an autocratic state entangled with vested business interests. People would not have on their minds a societal commitment due to a contrived reasoning denying society any independence from state institutions. Yet when referring to public opinion and publicness this independence is implied.

One way to guarantee independence from political, economic and religious influences would be to strengthen civil society. Its organisations do not strive for profit and its members uphold civic values by doing things voluntarily and for the sake of others but also for reasons of wishing to protect the environment and future life on this planet while upholding human rights. However, the NGOs of Civil Society have come as of late under scrutiny. It should also not be forgotten that the Olympic Committee, one of the richest organizations, considers itself to be a NGO. Also leading figures use the NGOs as spring board into political power e.g. Couchner from 'Doctors without Frontiers' to foreign minister in the Sarkozy government in France.

Needless to say it would be really hard to see a positive future ahead, if this independence is not given. A society not free on its own terms has many and deep implications. That can start with a conflusion about private/public interests linked to an economy pretending to be based on a free market when depending in reality upon state contracts and support. It can equally effect and even deform the education system till overdemanded by what society is no longer able to resolve e.g. a youth ready to become if not violent then to drop out of society.

Freedom has to be realized not merely as another kind of state of mind. This is what drug addicts suppose and what Thomas Mann described precisely in 'Magic Mountain'. Rather freedom is based on personal responsibility and reaffirms a commitment to life. It entails as well not being afraid to speak out the truth. Without such honesty there is no rooting of oneself in what one says to others (Simone Weil). Also without knowing the meaning of words there could be countered immediately in public debate any attempt at public lie.

In order to partake in public debate, itself an expression of a culture allowing participation, a frank openness is needed as much as a substantial knowledge about the issues being discussed. Participation has to mean as well a readiness to recognize other opinions. Reaching agreements on the basis of such an understanding of debate can point a way into the future. Certainly any open debate requires people who are free to name the issues. They should also be able to formulate the problems in need to be resolved. Once all of this is brought together in an agenda, it defines the tasks ahead.

Society must also avoid being split between those who affirm economic growth and those who seek meaningful employment. The unresolved nature of this difference has taken on many expressions around key terms often not very clearly defined, social injustice just one of them. Repeatedly the same experience can be made whether talking with people at work, in the street or at home. Something has become nearly unbridgeable. It is a difference in discourse. There are those who claim success only in terms related to an increase in economic growth and then there are the others who feel themselves to be left out by such type of economic growth. For instance, everything in Germany is export driven while efforts are made, organisationally speaking, to keep the basic wages so low as possible. Hence many of the employed at the lower end of the salary scale end up living at existential minimum or even below. In the light of these different discourses it would be impossible, politically speaking, to claim any success in terms of current economic policy. This is especially the case if youth employment has risen to a ten year high in 2010 and long term unemployment more than just a chronic problem.

Grace Boggs would remind that a false economic thinking prevails. It is linked to doing away with work: the employer because he sees work solely as cost factor, and the worker because he sees work as robbing him of any leisure time which he sacrifices solely for the sake of earning some money. This kind of thinking leaves out the fact that work can be something positive, indeed something everyone needs if to develop as human and social being. In addition there is still another type of work not to be forgotten. It is something Frederique Chabaud emphasizes in her letter, namely the work needed to understand the other. She adds that this is something only possible when going outside and beyond oneself. In a society determined by an economic thinking which downgrades work, if not wishing to do away with it entirely, there is certainly not much room, if any at all for such kind of work. And if it is done then mostly unpaid. Interestingly enough, Habermas would point out that psychoanalysis is the only science which allows for self-understanding. It is work on and with the self not to be cut off from what else the mind may think is in need to be done. However, most work organisations demand that the employed leave their souls at home or at the latest in the locker room where they change into working clothes.

There is another worrying trend. It is linked to the pension systems and the current discussion as to when people should be able to retire. In France demonstrations took place in September 2010 out of protest against the intention of the Sarkozy government to alter the retirement age from 60 to 62. Already when the Greek state deficit crisis came to the fore, the German press reflected public resentment in Germany due to a discrepancy in retirement age. While Greek civil servants could retire even before the age of 60 or widows collecting at the age of 45 the pensions of their deceased husbands, everyone in Germany has to reach 65 and as of late 67 before it is possible to retire. The European Commission goes even one step further and proposes as long term strategy raising the age to 70. It all reflects the fact that state budgets are burdened by a society growing older while demographic changes occur with less children being born and even less young people marrying to have children.

To this trend has to be added the fact that many end up going into retirement on such a low pension that they cannot exist on this limited amount e.g. 350 Euros a month or even less. It puts them at the fringe of society. It may even push them into 'illegal activities'. Forced to earn extra money they will not report it to the authorities. They do it at the risk if found out to have the amount of extra earnings be deducted from their already low pension or even loose the pension completely. And those who cannot make some extra money are forced into a still greater dependency upon basic security. The latter makes them subject to such scrutiny and a reporting system that they stand to loose all autonomy and subsequently their self-esteem. It can even lead to eviction from the house they live in if the authorities deem it as not corresponding to the level of pension or old age insurance they receive.

While administrations take their time to handle their requests, everyone has to go through an ever sharper scrutiny. This is in the eyes of most people but an expression of distrust by the system in them. No wonder when they turn that around and begin to distrust the system and the very institutions which supposed to protect them. As everyone makes a similar experience, it becomes more and more a common sentiment that the state mechanisms can no longer ensure for all a perspective to live in dignity.

A society composed by many people who are not merely poor materially speaking but also culturally and spiritually, will miss out on many things. Above all without positive human experiences substantiating social relationships, such a society shall risk to loose its main compass: the human being itself. Once that is the case mistrust becomes the norm. As negative 'condition humaine' it shall lead to society closing itself like a sea shell when touched.

In an insular society people are excluded far less for reasons of limited financial means as much more due to a poverty of experience. The latter leads to self-exclusion and countless self-defeats. Once people are wounded and without any self protection, they become a major stumbling bloc for themselves. They will not make any attempt at integration into society.

If 'poverty of experience' prevails, then because no one will go out of his or her way to facilitate something for the other or to reach out in order to act jointly out of human solidarity with especially those who suffer under social exclusion. This negative development due to a poverty of experience can become a permanent feature of disturbed personalities as it intensifies self exclusion mechanisms. This increases in turn the risk that society tolerates not only inhumane practices, but looks the other way when discrimination takes place on a regular basis. The trend becomes even more worrying when xenophobic tendencies are taken up by the state itself and enacts measures which defy all respect for human existence. This is when irrationalities start to abound and the political discourse becomes nearly impossible. This was nearly the case at the EU summit in September 2010. Sarkozy alleged then something Merkel supposed to have said when the detementi by the German chancellor showed there was no way out if member states do not respect EU laws.

Only certain forces thrive under such circumstances. That can be noted how it radicalize its spokespersons. To that can be added curious financing schemes e.g. Gaddafi die Extreme Rightist Haider of Austria until the latter had a deadly car crash. Generally speaking, the use of an extreme language prevents in effect a political debate. By just lashing out, it eradicates out of the public domain any sign of human decency. To all of this has to be added the distortion of reality as practiced by the media. By blowing up a triviality something insignificant is exaggerated to such an extreme that it becomes difficult to judge anymore the truth of the matter. Even though originally it may have been just a stupid remark, the media savours on this by giving trivialities more power than what they deserve. But if not careful a tiny bit of information can become an avalanche of stupidity. It can lead to everyone supposing that the wife of the US president Barack Obama did say in an interview 'life in the White House is hell'. That the media can make these kinds of remarks into major news items, that was demonstrated as well on how Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal as highest commander of US forces in Afghanistan had to resign after his alleged views were made public through one article.

The meaning of remarks often made when speaking off the cuff, so to speak, lies in their potential to be blow up to such an extent that as a major news item it takes on an entirely new meaning. It can threaten to create a lot of damage especially if no effective counter public relation move can counter it immediately to limit its effectiveness. Why trivial remarks can take on this significance depends on the context. In the case of Michelle's remark, it can only be gauged when there is taken into consideration some other factors e.g. the rise of the Tea Party in the United States and what potential challenge it poses to Obama's chances to be re-elected as President of the United States. Common people will say to themselves if that is the opinion of his wife Michelle, then let us not subjegate them to a second term in the White House. Sometimes political reasoning works in that way.

Only very tough characters can survive the onslaught of the media and make headway in politics. The media pretends to represent public opinion, even though at times it appears to be more like speaking for a lynch mob. As a result trivialities can easily become a stumbling block for those seeking a career. Once they have sensed blood, those hounds of journalists will not let go. That was as well the case when Lady Diane was followed by the paparazi and a mysterious car crash in the tunnel cost her life.

Those seeking a successful career in such a society, they tend to become hard in both attitudes and methods expecially in how they deal with others. As a consequence social structures become ever more rigid and closed. That means, generally speaking, everyone needs as much connections as protection to get on with both professional and private life. Not so much qualification and experience counts as much as knowing the right persons in the right places. Gramsci called it the 'homogeneity of interest' in an otherwise heterogenous society. It forces people into assuming all sorts of negative things. They begin to doubt the others and presume they have quite other intentions than what they proclaim. That suspicion exists due to a lack of dialogue. At the same time, people take up resolute or unwavering positions in order to ward off a wave of doubts. This they cannot afford. It would make them too vulernable in a society in which everyone has to pretend to know his or her way. It is an obvious a failure to stay human. Despite all of the material successes, people need, therefore, something to cling onto. They know if they fail, no one will stand by them or help them to see a way out of the mess. When McCain picked Sarah Palin out of nowhere as running mate for his in the final end unsuccessful presidential bid, he had made already a choice in which direction politics should develop in after the election of Barack Obama, namely one not relying on politics made intelligible but on extreme populism.

There prevails a new kind of Extremism, one the Middle Class who is exasperated by all the failures while overdemanded from all sides. This contributes not so much to a polarization between the Left and the Right as it seems at first sight, as it lowers the quality of political debate. It is a sign as well that no one knows anymore where the respective parties or candidates stand. This kind of anti-politics continues till all political differences have been obliterated. It plagues the Christian Democrats under Merkel in Germany where already the extreme Right no longer feels being at home within that party while the Greens are still searching for their home. Subsequently the Middle Class sees no longer any substantial proposals forthcome to issues they face. Hence political programs no longer determine who gets elected, but much more who can surf the wave of mistrust against the entire system. This leads to a nearly unresolvable conflict between 'us believers' and 'them' as the non-believers. Only the believers have the Right to protect their freedom against the encroachment of the state. That is a familiar pattern of argumentation. It is based on projections upon others rather than entering an intercultural dialogue with them e.g. the discussion about illegal immigrants in the United States. This pattern has been well described by Frederique Chabaud in her letter. She did so in reference to the Middle East but it can be easily transferred onto Western societies as well.

All sorts of shortcomings are felt in an intensification of tensions spilling over into a lack of sleep, nervousness, short temper and outright aggression. Like a tsunami, it can built up into a force comprised of everything from intolerance to violence. In its wake all forms of crime start to make daily life ever more risky, equally survival under humane conditions tougher, if not outright impossible. This is accompanied by a growing fear of others. Once that begins to dominate society with the media adding oil to the flames e.g. newspapers advise to lock doors and windows as the streets are no longer secure at night, then exaggerated apprehension distorts beyond recognition any perception of reality. That is what fear mongering manages to bring about with people scrambling to seek some truth in only the negative.

Unfortunately it has become a common 'nonsense' that society together with the state cannot do anything about crime, the youth and the loss of meaning for life. Everybody joins in the game to blame the politicians for such poor state of affairs. It is commonly assumed all of them are corrupt while the youth has no longer any ideals. However, bemoaning this fact does not alleviate the situation but it does dominate in the end the usual non-political talks. It is a common consensus how bad everything has become. Such negative mood affects shapes or rather limits politics in the making. If people are without any positive outlook they shall continue unchecked in their negative mood. It intensifies only fear. Since that can in turn justify almost everything basically everyone wishes someone would come and contradict their negative assumptions. Unfortunately no one dares or manages to oppose these views. In silence a majority ends up sharing in a negative sense what life is all about, namely nothing worth telling about. When that opinion hits rock bottom, it can happen that the call for a strong man or dictator gains again ground.

Negative politics reflects a lack of practical and political experience in how people can defend democracy when need to. Although Perikles said already back then in his funeral speech to the Polis of Ancient Greece, the best way to defend a city is not by having huge armies but active citizenship. Instead states continue to invest in armies and police forces. Often they are called upon not to protect the people but the system against the people. It ignores the fact that without citizen participation in public debates public truth cannot be handled as what it is: a positive challenge to do things differently and to learn out of past mistakes while seeking a common future.

Despite the existence of so much social injustice the neo-liberal idea dominates in most governments. Automatically it means preference is given to economic growth and to a banking system operated at the real costs of everything else. The huge bail outs of banks after the Lehman collapse showed that. But what has been really achieved over the past ten years? Over consumption has brought about climate change while everything comes at a much higher cost than orginally assumed by economists. They thought once significant scale of economies are reached, then everything would be more efficient, equally come at a cheaper prize. Quite the opposite is the case: while things get more expensive by the day unemployment and social insecurity have increased alongside a growing discrepancy between the rich and the poor.

Most of the time the official unemployment figures do not tell the full story. They are meant to underline the success of the official policy and do not give an insight into reality. Rather every effort is undertaken to keep the unemployment figures down. While the statistics are manipulated, real unemployment is driven underground.

Indeed there are many more hidden forms of unemployment and a violence which goes with it. The superfical discourse at EU level cannot pick up this nor address the hidden violence before it is too late. As to those with work many of them do so under poor conditions and either at such low wages that they cannot live on it or else they are forced to do not one, but two or more jobs at the same time, in order to make ends meet. They earn so little that it prevents them from making plans for the future. If not careful they will sink below existential minimum and then loose their independence altogether. They are also over exploited from both the rich and the poor. As waiters, computer expert, train driver, prison guard or nurse they serve at one and the same time two different clients: the rich in the expensive restaurant and the poor as those who have become so helpless that they cannot help themselves.

Given such a state of affairs, there is nothing to be proud of. Jürgen Habermas contradicted here already Merkel's wish to celebrate the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. By 2010 the EU has to deal with a lack of economic governance made evident in most certain terms by the Greek state deficit. Equally the EU has to face the fact that many its laws are repeatedly broken by even key member states, France and Germany included e.g. going in their state deficit beyond the 3% limit or expulsion of the Roma by France. Since all EU member states wish to retain as much autonomy as possible they act accordingly by trying to gain maximum benefits out of the EU while putting in as little as possible. While Germany as net contributor remains silent about all the benefits a single market has for its export driven industry, Sarkozy in France expells the Roma in defiance of EU law granting to all its citizens, including the Roma, free mobility within the European Union.

Without people having a chance to experience real dialogues, they cannot enter multi-levelled, equally different ways to see and to discuss 'la raison d'etre' - the reason to be a European citizen. Without a common human spirit they cannot be engaged in a continueous way for the idea of an unified Europe. That then leads to the question whether or not EU institutions have really in them what it takes to sustain a democratic process.

In reference to sustainability, the yearly designation of the title of European Capital of Culture to one, two or more cities can be taken as an example of some of the worst mistakes being made by not linking the three time dimensions of past, present and future and therefore missing out on experiencing a continuity of change. Since that is real life things get worse if not reflected upon by culture. The mangement of change is quite different from people able to cope. Kapuscinski observed after the break down of the Soviet Union most of the people were helpless precisely due to a lack of a cultural tools which could help them to cope with all the ongoing changes. If not culturally worked through, then entire regions are transformed into static entities devoid of any meaning.

As to the European Capitals of Culture, one common experience made by those who do work for five years to prepare that one special year is that they are dismissed thereafter by the city they have worked for. They become, literally speaking, lost bodies. Despite a wealth of experience they seem unable to connect or to network themselves in a way that could inspire others to take a similar chance and become engaged for a city. As Spyros Mercouris would say in his speech to the Cultural Parliament which met in Athens in September of 2010, today the situation has changed. He noted that there is one vital element missing in all of this, namely the spirit. This, he would acclaim, they had when together with Melina Mercouri they implemented for the first time in Athens 1985 her idea of having every year one city being a cultural capital.

Culturally speaking, if everything is done only for the sake of money, then this exceptional engagement shall be missing. Many invaluable impulses which culture could give to the life in cities and in Europe would never be felt or be taken up by subsequent attempts to give a definite shape to future plans. The low level of discourse attests to that. It feeds on a kind of deeply rooted cynicism which does not allow even constructive criticism to be articulated as everything is deemed to be in vain.

Fortunately human reality has still an astonishing capacity to turn around things before it is too late or theatens to be come only negative. But to experience and to acknowledge that, cultural resistance against all the silence is needed. If Europe is to attain cultural sustainability of human development, there is needed as stressed repeatedly by Frederique Chabaud an understanding of how culture works at variious levels. It has to include urban based activities and this in relation to what takes place outside cities. Today there are no more places left untouched by the urbanization process. The latter has accelerated due to cities, regions and the entire world coming under the increasing pressure of globalization. Therefore much more work needs to be done before this new situation can be understood. This would affirm Frederique Chabaud who stressed that understanding is the key to any fruitful debate.

It has not been mentioned so far but dialogue without imagination would make it impossible to include the other or to understand his or her fear. It would also be impossible to question reality, never mind see ahead. The imagination is an entire subject matter onto itself. Only few philosophers like Jean Paul Sartre made the imagination into a subject of reflection.

Picasso observed on hand of himself that adults tend to loose the imagination they still had when children. If so, then something is deeply wrong in the way education, work and later on organisational necessities drive out all creativity and with it the imagination needed to develop empathy for others. For without such intersubjective understanding people would no longer e able to reflect what was happening inside the very institutions set up for the purpose to make possible political decisions. Decisions need to be made on behalf of others and in consideration of factors like existing treaties, prevailing laws, established facts and a common sense as to what is possible, what not. Cornelius Castoriadis referred to that in his criticism of political parties and their programmes. He was of the opinion political alienation is the result of people no longer able to understand themselves in terms of what politics has made out of their needs and wishes. This is the case when they cannot reflect their ideas in political programs set up by parties and what is being discussed in parliament. Yet without these inputs by ordinary people an imaginative politics would have no base.

Since self-understanding is subject to cultural prisms at the level of the imagination not any process will do. In exceptional times like the Prague Spring in 1968 this comes to the fore. Amazing is to see then how people can become creative not only outside, but within the institution. Through a creative involvement in imaginative processes which transform the decision making, people become aware that other possibilities exist compared to what any system can offer. Furthermore through the imagination they can bring about a more humane form of existence. This is done by enriching their self-understanding in what they can contribute to a culture to be shared with all. It is possible to create at all times the conditions for such an imaginative politics provided people are free in their imagination as if they were children again and they do have the courage to go in a different direction than what the system wants them to do.

The imagination as a creative process should not rely solely on an individual genius. An ethnological inspired exhibition prepared by the Surrealists showed already in 1927 or around that time how crucial is the collective creative process compared to Western culture and its emphasis upon the creative individual artist. In that exhibition Picasso's painting of the women of Avignon was displayed in contrast to masks carved by anonymous artists of an African village. Here the famous name capable of captivating an entire audience, there works by unknown people but still able to inspire in a different way. That contrast prevails still today. For once a society no longer depends upon individual artists, then it is possible to open up new ways of perceiving things. There are countless other ways by which can be furthered productive and fruitful interactions.

Michael Polanyi examined, for example, the difference between primitive, archaic and modern economies and came to the conclusion that money as decision carrier within an economy based on the exchange principle does not allow people to participate in the decision making process linked to a fair distribution of limited resources. In a society based on reciprocity people would enter a collaborative learning process on how to distribute resources so that everybody has his or her needs satisfied. It would mean to let everyone become engaged in creativity. Naturally in such a society the imagination takes on a new significance. Everything will take place at both the practical and the imaginative level as society entrusts each and every individual to be able to contribute daily to a forward looking approach to life. Culture would then be a differentiated way to make things possible.

Children can contribute a lot to free adults from their inhibitions to use their imagination. For example, Kids' Guernica is such an attempt to free adults. It is done by children painting together murals which have the same size as Picasso's Guernica (7,8 x 3,5 m). Once this canvas has been touched by their soul, says Thomas Economacos, then this can set free the imagination in adults when seeing these murals. Over and beyond that the value of that practice is to let everyone enter a collaborative learning process so that the prerequisites for working together become known to everyone.

With regards to the imagination as making possible a collaborative learning process, here the negative role played by the media needs to be examined more carefully. For it seems that the media stifles rather than encourges the use of the imagination. It reduces thereby empathy for others and drives especially young people into new forms of self isolation e.g. the impact of computer based games and high tech entertainment replacing any other kind of interaction.

Many things can go wrong once the media fails to give to society the moral impulses needed to uphold the democratic process. Once the media starts playing with politics and vice versa politicians play with the media, then in such a game two things will happen aside from many other things. Revenge will be promoted as a result of people feeling to be outplayed constantly as they do not set the rules. And they will loose out on a practical discourse since the latter cannot be a game even if Wittgenstein attempted to reduce language to that of a chess game. His followers landed if not in mathematical speculations in a new kind of mysticism.

Without the moral impulses the imaginative process has no orientation and therefore perception of different possibilities would be extremely limited. If not halted in time it shall lead to a reductionism of life itself. Creativity is not an arbitrary process but presupposes an ethical integrity. This goes hand in hand with discovering and articulating the cultural dimensions entailed in every potential choice. That needs to be reflected upon as anticipation for things to come and before the decision is made. People cannot really take a hold of things and grasp their lives as subject of their own practices if cut off from their imagination. It explains why so many disturbed communication patterns desorientate many people while individuals after individuals are hurt by dialogues either ending abruptly before they could develop into something substantial or even worse are never taken up. Literally speaking, it is to be feared that a 'pathology of communication' is more wide spread than what has been presumed to be the case up to now. It leaves an imagination based on ethical thinking about life outside all considerations.

The media tends to argue with presumed goals when in fact the imagination is needed to perceive those goals which are worth striving for. The replacement of real goals by pseudo-aims e.g. a new car to feel happiness. The manipulation by replacing real with pseudo needs is achieved by the modern media entering a similar language as advertisement. It reduces thereby the provision of information to solely image related messages. Once that gains the upper hand, an 'ontology of fact' is created.

Over and again the image of the planes hitting the Twin Towers is shown to underline 911 was a terror attack. This fact is reproduced to justify the going to war. The repeated image as message replaces all the other discourses although many different voices were heard immediately after the planes had struck and the Twin Towers collapsed. There was, for instance, an international female lawyer whose husband died in one of the Twin Towers. She was heard saying on CNN that her husband had always lived and acted in terms of seeking peace. She concluded emphatically that his death should never be used to justify the going to war. Such nuanced and different statements heard during the first three days were blended out as the media moved in to forge a general opinion as if America was under attack and revenge justified. For no one should be able to get away with that! This was a statement made by singer J. Cash on CNN when he was interviewed shortly before he died. The termination of public debate by the media done by shutting out all those nuanced voices explains why it becomes increasingly impossible for creative minds to express themselves in public. Only sharp ones like Noam Chomsky manage to do that but he too risks becoming one sided when analysis is replaced by moralism. Rather giving moral impulses to stay critical would be more crucial as this furthers public debate. The latter presupposes, however, a readiness to enter an open problematization and to go around the corner to seek more and better information.

There is another way to explain the loss of the imagination. The latter can only be expressed if an intensive work is undertaken even if takes time to see any results. This kind of work is made possible by enormous investments in the arts and in culture. They are needed to make things impossible. However, in a fast moving world quite the opposite takes place. Politicians, advisors, journalists etc. all have to face an increasing pressure to say everything essential in maximum three minutes. Everyone comes under the same pressure to say something substantial but short. Anything longer than three minutes will be cut off. In short, political discourse is stifled by an incredible impatience.This need to be short has become a kind of built regulation or censorship in people's minds without reflecting upon the fact that it goes with the need to keep up with a technical system designed to speed up things i.e. images flashed across the screen in seconds.

What aggrevates the situation is not only bad communication but one preventing the working out of things. This is mainly due to a technical induced impatience which reinforces a tendency to give wrong interpretations the Right to speak while all others hover in silence. Making short statements even at the risk to become ontological nonsense is justified for otherwise people would no longer listen. To be brief in whatever one says has become the standard rule. Consequently any communication outside that norm shall be deemed as being ineffective. It favours, therefore, a subtle but effective censorship to ensure nothing goes beyond these three minutes. That censorship through impatience brings then something into play. It is less subtle but more effective in silencing those who still do not abide to this norm, namely intolerance.

Instead of listening when something incomplete is being articulated, a certain prejudice against anything more elaborative has become a silent wall. It blocs off any attempt to be committed to social goals reflected upon through a cultural prism based on ethics. And everything is done to make sure that these points are not taken up in future. This system of forgetting ensures that understanding the real reasons for the issue at hand remains at best a random guess. No one will have a clue what the situation requires in order to be resolved economically, socially, politically and culturally speaking. It explains why overt statements are preferred. Instead of thinking out aloud what proposals make sense given possible policy choices, every chance is given to let a formal evasion of any sign of responsibility dominate the discussion. There is no room for taking up seriously what needs to be done immediately.

Without imagination people cannot reflect upon the preconditions for a more substantial debate. The media makes sure that it stays that way. Even when the EU wishes to focus, for example, in 2010 on methods to 'combat social exclusion and poverty' and initiates studies to examine how poverty is perceived by the media compared to that by Civil Society, public debate seems to be unaffected by this and continues despite these efforts in only a certain direction. While the ousting of the Roma in France will be picked up by the media, not so the contradiction between asking for funds to help the Roma but them not really receiving in the final end the money allocated for projects to help the Roma. This should enter, however, the debate at EU level as to what is happening really in European projects.

There is always at risk that the media distorts the choices ahead. For example this was the case when the United States decided upon the use of the car as most favorable transporation vehicle. Around that time every effort was undertaken by vested interests linked to the car industry to blend out the social alternative of public transportation. What the media did then was not an act of public responsibility nor in the interest to connect publicness with reason (Habermas) but then Frederique Chabaud could explain why it comes to that phenomeonon. Coming to terms with reason seems to have become impossible after the failure of the Enlightenment and beyond that how public debates have changed in character mainly due to the media.

If there is to be a change in future, responsible politice discourse must draw upon these lessons. This is only possible by involving the imagination to bridge the difference between then and now. To come to terms with the situation at hand a dialogue with the past is needed but that is often confused with a nostalgic look to how things were before. As said ongoing changes are realities of life. They affect the dialogue with the past but only in a positive way if the present is not determined by what happened in the past. At the same time, Jean Paul Sartre said it is only possible to live in the present if the goals for the future are already known. Aside from these three dimensions of time, there are differences between subjective and objective notions of time as there is also a sense for history (Bieri). Therefore it can be already decisive how one prepares for future debates. The materials needed to become substantial in addressing certain issues are as important as knowing how to negotiate as civil society with official authorities. Too often the mistake is made not to go well prepared into these meetings and then to speak all at once without knowing in which direction the development of things should go. A realistic outlook according to Haroula Hadjinicolau is to be able to negotiate possibilities within the given framework and then see what comes next.

Especially the youth needs to become free from a conspiracy against truth. This is done by adults upholding negative truisms, in order to ensure a continuity of failures when it comes to challenging bad practices. Corruption will continue so also wars. Hence an example of such a negative truism is entailed in the argument that because no peace agreement was possible in the Middle East until now, not dialogue shall further the peace process but instead guns and war fare will continue to have the final word. It is like a siege mentality. It makes any attempt at changing the basic condition appear to be a hopeless case. Repeatedly will be said that there is no alternative in sight. What is not recognized in that the imagination needed to perceive alternatives is blocked out completely as well.

Impatience results out of thinking there are short cuts not taken to reach an outcome. On the contrary, Bertold Brecht said wisely so that detours are the shortest routes to reach a goal. This is because the experiences made along the way are of equal importance. They prevent that complex matters are reduced to negative truisms. To argue why something cannot be done is as misleading as is the unconditional hope everything shall be fine tomorrow. If there is not set a conditional hope, then no learning out of real disappointments shall not take place and instead broken promises but also peace processes failing to come to an agreement will let these disappointments set in. They will let any future public debate go in the worng direction. In either case things be presented in a highly superficial manner as if there are no other choices. The failure to bring different discourses together in view of what decisions need to be taken, that then may explain also why Frederique Chabaud came to the conclusion the operation with the term 'intercultural dialogue' at EU level shall not work since based on half truths.

As to dialogues furthered by the arts, the media has made that practice amongst artists, writers and thinkers into such a rarity that situations cannot be easily re-created to allow for further questioning of works of art at the level of the imagination. For instance, a real creative process is unthinkable without the appreciation by others as to what one attempts to do whether now a drawing or a theatrical performance. Encouragement as much as good criticism is needed to improve upon the work. The direction is always the same: to give freedom to the imagination. Like a good character in a novel such a described figure by the author comes only to life if the character takes on a note of independence from its creator. Quite the opposite is the case in the media age with everything being based on digital technology. A simulation of a situation is no longer the same as it is just a manipulation of images to alter the ways a story can be told. This technical manipulation could be one crucial factor as to why the situation has become very serious, if not for many really dismal. Since the imagination is crucial for dialogue as the best way to stay in touch with reality by learning to understand others, the very absence thereof would be disasterous. If there is no empathy forthcoming, not much can be done to alter the situation. Instead of dialogue other measures such as exclusion out of fear would grip society and lead to such discriminatory measures as the case of the Roma in France.

It is ironic for that to happen in France in 2010. It was the key parole of the May uprising in 1968 to bring the imagination to power and poetry into the streets. By autumn during that remarkable year poetry had disappeared. Again only cars filled the streets. What has followed since then may require much more analysis then here possible. But so much can be said something has gone terribly wrong. According to Monique Kissel, artist and professor of art at the University of Saint Denis, France is dominated more and more by a sick discourse. As this is linked to those who demand respect for French law and for the French way of doing things, such inclusive equally exclusive attitude will not be open for dialogue but assert the French state as being something superior over everything else.

All over Europe and equally in the rest of the world various developments show that a society without imagination cannot relate anymore to the subversive nature of the arts (Carol Becker). Furthermore, these societies shall leave unanswered the questions Herbert Marcuse posed towards the end of his life. He had wanted to start a treatise on 'Aesthetics' but unfortunately never got around to answering them. The same applies to Adorno who left as well his reflections about aesthetics unfinished. Work in this direction should be continued as it has been done in part by Carol Becker. Crucial along those lines are aesthetical reflections linking creativity, imagination and ethics to artistic freedom of articulation. By realizing this differs from freedom to express an opinion, it can show how art works. For artistic articulation upholds a tension between the imagination as examined by Jean Paul Sartre and reality to be experienced differently when approached in an imaginative way. What then is created is not the whole but a reflection of the relationship between the parts and whole as something existing due to man's own hands and actions.

While Matisse had one idea of how the parts and the whole relate, Martin Jay showed in his book 'the Disentchantment of the eye' how more and more the theory of totality was refuted till Adorno came along to acclaim the whole is not the truth. Within the domains of the arts details began to matter more. There is the hand by Dürer or an attempt to explain the arts to a rabbit (Beuys). And then came along Duchamp with his rack for drying bottles and declared this object to be an art work. All of them depict a way of showing how social and human relationships develop out of reality perceived from close up (the dancers of Degas) or out of historical perspective (Altdörfer's Battle of Alexander the Great against Darius). Subversive is not art by itelf but rather the complexity of the human being. That breaks always through in any image created to disturb the notion of simplicity. Thus the relationship to man striving to be creative is always at stake.

For instance, Walter Benjamin's 'flaneur' of the shopping mall was such a figure. He meant to reveal the inherent contradictions of society during his time. The message can be that of resistance against a consumer society which uses up time by making people just buy things in shopping malls. Resistance can come in the form of the idle one who does nothing but stroll up and down in these passages. He does nothing. He does not even do what others like to do, namely window shopping. The notion of 'idle time' as form of resistance is something to think about. It can be set against time being consumed and therefore leaving not a trace in memory as to what has been experienced. Connected with that is what Walter Benjamin foresaw, namely art becoming an integral part of mass production. It would mean no art work could be considered to be unique the moment it becomes reproducable. This holds true even more so today, but the point Walter Benjamin wanted to make is that art works can and do provide orientation provided they reveal these inherent contradictions.

It was Adorno's criticism of Benjamin that his work on the flaneur did not achieve that completely. It was a dispute about what can be described in spiritual terms when materially bounded? By the same account Adorno stipulated, aesthetically speaking, that it is crucial for any art work to articulate through every detail the formation of a composed reality as an incomplete whole. The degree of complexity attained by striving for such an expression, and it may well be Schönberg's twelve tone composition, provides a measure for these times lived through. Things made possible but also impossible can be reflected by simple strokes of a paint brush. The strength of the line does matter. In a musical composition this will have to take on the task of tracing possibilities of alternatives as to how life evolves in reality e.g. by imitating a linear approach to things. Art is there to remind that nothing is given and there exist potentially other possibilities. That is what was referred to above, namely the tension between the imagination as the conceivable other possibility and any given reality. Already by expressing this critical tension the art work may show what can work, what not. These possibilities exist side by side mainly due to the presence of the imagination. Art expresses, therefore, the work in need to be done to free the imagination as an energy source. That need becomes one of articulation.

But to come back to the European debate based on the concept of 'intercultural dialogue', the low level can attests already due to skipping real differences that there is a lack of imagination. Instead the public debate in Europe seems to follow some invisible restraining order. For example, position papers published by Culture Action Europe will not criticize openly what is done at EU level but introduce concepts to turn around the debate as if those below have to fulfill them. There is then talk of citizen participation in order to identify those who have deliver first of all the proof what goes, what not. Such turning around of the debate deflects from the real power and says very little about the need to substantiate the key concept.

Naturally some criticism has been forthcoming and the EU Commission responds to this with new proposals but despite these efforts to alleviate the situation, there is nothing much forthcoming. Nothing means even consultation is merely a part of a process designed to legitimize already precluded aims and assumptions on how things shall work so that by seeking a structured dialogue with Civil Society through the creation, for example, of the Platform for Intercultural Europe, the European Commission does not come really pick up this loss of the imagination. Consequently the EU altogether does not measure up to the reason why it was set up in the first place.

The failure to face challenges in an open way at all levels can be explained by the arts not really shaping notions of dialogue and discourse. The European debate could be substantiated provided all participants are free enough in their imagination to think of alternative ways of goverance in Europe. If this discourse cannot be made possible by the arts, then the political failure shall weigh down heavily upon the very idea of Europe. The European Union has been united so far in a technocratic way. It heeds institutional, economic and security needs, but hardly in spirit the arts and the imagination. Many find it deplorable that a spirit as conveyed by Delors is missing today. The very absence of a forward moving spirit can be felt immediately when entering the political relationships being played out at EU level with Barroso taking the lead in conveying a dried out technocratic style of ensuring power remains not only in the hands of the Commission but as well in his own.

The weakness of the Council of Ministers is well known. For instance, the Finnish foreign minister was aghast in September 2010 that the Council of Foreign Ministers had brought up China only once in the past four years. Michael D. Higgins points out repeatedly that during his four years as Minister of Culture the Council made but one couragous decision. The very absence of a lively dialogue at EU level explains why despite all efforts there is a lack of co-ordination of different activities (structured and procedural ones, informal as added input, ongoing ones at EU project level etc.). To become aware which issues should determine the EU agenda, takes time and a lot of effort before the right tone exists. The latter does determine how things can and are discussed within the given framework of EU institutions, the European Parliament included.

For instance, Doris Pack as President of the Cultural Committee of the European Parliament appears less convinced that something can be moved ahead now that she is the President of the Committee. That differs from what she had assumed would be possible once in such a position. She had thought about it a lot during her twenty years of service as MEP on the Committee for Culture, Education, Media, Sports and Youth. That says a lot about real limitations. For she is considered to be one of the most engaged and knowledgable members of the European Parliament.

This weakness to move things plagues as well the working of the Platform of Intercultural Europe. Although based on 'intercultural dialogue' the remoteness of the Platform is striking. Instead of interacting with the members, its key spokespersons operate at EU level on the basis of an unproven assumption that lobby work is identical with furthering intercultural dialogue in Europe. It is not! It has to be remembered that intercultural dialogue is linked to a model Europe should become. There is the aim to create an intercultural Europe. Hence every citizen should be enabled to handle cultural diversity through intercultural dialogue practices. But the Platform is far from involving its members in the unfolding of a consistent campaign with the aim to promote this idea. The reason for the failure was made already explicit by Frederique Chabaud in her letter of 2002. It stands to reason that as long as the assumption prevails different discourses can be subsumed under this one concept of 'international dialogue', there shall be no questioning of this false assumption. Therefore, the Platform will not bring about another vision of possibilities which do exist in reality but are not perceived by the Platform as relevant to its lobby work aiming to gain influence at EU level.

In the absence of wit and humour even the sharpest minds cannot improve upon things. All the cynicism is too much for those who are involved. It stifles criticism and makes a forward looking way of thinking impossible. Above all it reduces everything to just that: an operation based on half-truths. This critical remark by Frederique Chabaud stands out in her letter.

A technocratic language used by the Platform for Intercultural Europe serves merely the purpose to survive within the institutional setting, but nothing more. Unnoticed goes the silence of members of these organisations. It explains why 'intercultural dialogue' ends up having no structural support or real footing in civil society. To enter a real dialogue there would have to be deduced out of lived through experiences ideas which can be substantiated through discussion and experiences made by further going actions. A real debate is only possible if everyone can share a clear understanding as to what works, what not when deploying this concept.

Instead the effort is made by keyfigures of the Platform to get in contact with as many EU institutions and committees as possible and that independent from its own members. It is done to gain apparently in influence as this will underline the importance of the Platform. Success is measured in terms of how many meetings the representatives of the Platform are invited to or how many attend the meetings. Necessarily the Platform has to follow this principle of seriousness through and see to it that all these meetings with the Commission are perceived by everyone as being really the most important ones. By upgrading these meetings with the Commission, it automatically downgrades meetings designed to gather the opinions of the members. The reason for such a practice is easily explainable. After all the Commission provides the funds to cover the operation of the Platform. In the process the interaction with the members looses in importance and the alibi-function played by the Platform shall continue over and above the heads of the members. They end up not know really what is going on as they are not informed.

In the end all that fake theatre of constant importance made to appear as if very serioius serves only self-interests but as a performance it is a very poor one. The Platform risks to perpetuate a fake continuity while in reality it furthers a multiple disorder. It is a perpetual law that change not to change shall be followed through by creating something new with the promise it shall be better than the old. Consequently at any given moment in time there shall be sidelined the old group or committee which dealt with the problem up to now. Despite that it will continue to exist as it has secured sufficient resources to stay alive for another ten years or more. By contrast, the current and very active group or committee is permanently under stress for nothing seems to work well; it seems that there are too many negative interests wishing to find primarily an excuse to create a new group or committee which is not hindered by the past. As to the new group or committee, it is not as of yet properly set up to function fully but absords already resources. The resources are given by those politicians who want to secure their powers through the 'new'. Altogether there is no learning process taking place between all three groups possible. Rather all three groups or committees gloss over existing problems not resolved up to now as they avoid entering areas of conflict due to the potential of overdemanding them. All three have been set up to deal with one and the same problem but the duplication of work makes the entire process even less effective than what could have been achieved if everything had been done to make the first group more consistent in terms of achieving an intercultural Europe through furthering the intercultural dialogue.

A good example for this triology is the Lisbon Treaty. It has set up a new President and a Foreign Affairs post but without replacing effectively the old system. So now old and new things start to exist side by side. More energy, time and good will go into sorting out the differences between them. Rather than coming to terms the process itself will absorb time, money and people's patience. No wonder if this fails to reach out to the citizens of Europe. They wait to see what will be the outcome but due to all the delays they end up hovering in silence, if they are not already deeply disappointed by what they can see, namely nothing. They feel as having being sidelined by all these institutional arrangements. They feel that despite all efforts to the contrary that the most important things take place at EU level behind closed doors and therefore without their knowledge. There is no real consultation. That is not only highly deplorable but deeply damaging to the European Union's credibility and wish to exemplify that a functioning democracy can be based on 'soft power' and despite being a greater union of many member states, cultures and people dialogue is possible.

At world level Barack Obama is currently experiencing how difficult it is to stay in touch with an honest discourse. As of late he risks to become himself a victim of 'public diplomacy', another word for propaganda. Also he cannot give in to what is called in German 'Zweck-Optimismus' - being optimistic solely for this purpose. But being realistic and still not deeply pessimistic to the point that people begin to think nothing will work out, that cannot be either the position of a president. Alone how his Presidency is unfolding compared with the visionary plans he had prior to having been elected, it can show a very significant difference. For example, he had such a well thought through vision on how to revive American cities, that it is amazing how little of that has remained once reality has kicked in, so to speak. Yet the way forward for him would be to stick to those ambitious plans and not be discouraged by either lack of funds or political opposition. A commitment to a full truth as expressed through an envisioned plan is always the better alternative to giving in to all kinds of pressures to be more realistic. Staying on course would mean keeping open the discussion in order to know what has not been brought about so far. This has to be measured against that vision wishing to bring cities back to life. If to be a rational discourse and not a mere political polemic the realization of that vision has to determine the debate and not what happens in Washington.

But nothing compares to the clichés Barroso used in his first speech to the European Parliament in September 2010. It was declared to be an address to the Union as if similar to when a US President addresses Congress at the start of every New Year. Barroso claimed in that speech everything is progressing and above all economic growth shall be greater than expected. Given the high rate of youth employment and the huge state deficits, this kind of over optimism by-passes European reality, but as a by-pass it reveals the real state of affairs. Moreover he wishes that Europe speaks with one voice. That leaves no space for the polyphonic sounds to be heard when people are discussing in a lively manner what lies ahead. Driven by the media to think a solution for Europe would be if one person holds all the power and therefore can speak for all, it does injustice to people. They are able to govern themselves in a democratic way.

The EU should follow through on its promise to be democratically united. If that is to be case, then the process of integration needs to be steered much more in the direction of upgrading the role of the European Parliament. It is the only directly elected body of all European institutions. No wonder when especially the youth but also someone like Menuhin consider such a speech as the one Barroso gave to be nothing but a lie.

The mentioning of lie can link up with what Martin Jay said provokingly at a conference held in Crete in 2006 where also Noam Chomsky spoke after having been just in Lebanon. Martin Jay developed onhand of philosophers like Hannah Arendt, Adorno and others the thesis that Europeans have taught the Americans the love for 'mendacity'. It goes without saying such a lie is already justified if an elite claims the common people do not wish to hear the full truth. Implicit in that claim is the arrogance of the elite tinking it is capable of handling the demands of a truthful speech. On the contrary everywhere in Europe there has been adopted the 'public diplomacy' approach. It makes the lie acceptable, politically speaking. It gives space to spin doctors like Rove when advising President Bush. Insofar as Europe succumbs to such a tendency which belies reality, it will have less and less a voice in the world.

Without an authentic culture no voice can make itself be heard there where it really counts, namely in true opposition to contrived reasoning and on the side of those who go often unrecognized even though they speak the truth. That has been all along a problem in Europe. Already in Ancient Greece before Athens entered the disasterous war with Sparta, the polis did not listen to the voice warning that there shall be no victorious parties on either side. The absence of an authentic culture explains an inability to pose good questions in order to bring forth and to listen to different discourses. If to be real, then multiple stories have to be told (Michael D. Higgins). They allow the discovery of new ways of thinking ahead. But instead of encouraging and picking up the threads of these different discourses, the EU Commission assumes all these different discourses can be subsumed under a single concept. It underscores yet again the failure of 'intercultural dialogue' as a viable concept.

Ongoing rationalization as to why something cannot be done right now (e.g. no measures for the sake of social justice exist, but if the banks need huge loans to retain confidence in the Euro then everything is done to uphold a failed system) aims to sell an obvious failure (e.g. high rate of unemployment) as part of a success story (e.g. working towards a higher economic growth.) The fact that no one mentions the social costs which go with all these fake claims of profits says a lot about accounting principles silening the real costs. That accounting is made possible by a government willing to bail out the banks holding bad loans of companies while not securing a minimum existence level for all, in particular those who are unemployed. That then says something about yet another kind of 'ontology of silence'.

The rationale of the system turns a blind eye towards all of these things. For instance, in reality no one knows any longer where to dump next all the cars thrown onto a limited market. This is partially due to over production but also cities and nature can take only so many cars, paved roads, parking places etc. Already in Greece it is estimated that more earth is covered for the sake of the car than what needs to be kept free so that rain water can sicker through the earth into underground reservoirs. The problem of overproduction reveals at the same time that top managers have been fixed for years just on quantitative increases as measure of success i.e. so many cars sold per year so much profit. It prevents drawing the right consequences in time to get out of this false dependency.

For sure, there are those who argue for keeping the car industry artificially alive by either direct subsidies or else indirectly through bank loans. In Germany banks sit on the board and therefore are responsible due to this co-decision mechanism for all the mess. But if politicians and others are convinced this mechanism must be upheld at all costs in order to shorten, so they promise falsely, the agony of those who are unemployed, then this not a conflict between practicality and morality. Rather it prevents a much needed discussion about alternatives to the car industry and other similar business ventures. That should include real estate speculation and the phenomenon of ever more construction of houses eating away at every free spot of earth especially along coastal lines since a view of the sea is much preferred by everyone. Not to built everywhere but to preserve untouched landscapes would be a real contribution to a much needed adaptation to climate change. The discussion needed for this is, however, not forthcoming. Copenhagen was a failure in 2010, Cancun does not promise to be any better.

There has to be questioned the claim that with greater economic growth new jobs shall be created. In reality this has not been the case. As a matter of fact if work is defined as participation in society and not merely as something to bring forth one concrete product, then work as resource has to be distributed just as any other resource like water. That is to say work creation is a process to which everyone should have access to. Instead work for artificial needs flourish e.g. security firms increase their profits during periods of crisis as the crime rate climbs upwards, while training at work diminishes to the extent that experiences for years are asked for even though everyone knows a young person entering the labor market cannot have those years of experience. As this is yet another example of contrived reasoning prevailing, it explains a bit more why all these decision makers are out of touch with reality.

When Barack Obama was a senator and still living in Chicago, he could go for a haircut to his local barber. By entering his shop, he would stay in touch with reality. Everyone could walk in as well and start to chat with him. Once in power security reasons and other considerations take over. It makes that daily dialogue with people in the streets impossible. As a consequence he has become isolated in the White House despite conscious efforts to steer against that sense of being cut off from reality.

As a result of being cut off, political articulation becomes more and more abstract. It reflects how quickly and how far politicians are removed by the system from the real life people experience daily. What people do and think becomes highly irrelevant for those who are privileged and in power. Yet common people have to live the consequences of those who have the power to make decisions. Many in power do not live up to the responsibilities for all the failures and more so damages they have caused due to false decisions. Even worse is that they are safeguarded by the system and thus do not have to face consequences e.g. President Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq despite his false claim that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction had to date no consequences. A teacher who would have been found out that he or she lied when a student was expelled from school on the basis of the teacher's claim this student had misbehaved would be fired immediately. It seems serious consequences are only meant to keep common people in check. Those who get away with all kinds of crimes end up believing a kind of life of amorality would allow them to do many things since it had no consequences until now whatever they did. That may be in play with church men abusing children. It is a dangerous illusion since child abuse has even led to suicide as reported by the Belgium report in 2010.

Even worse is what happens in a society if governed by a political elite which is not only corrupt but blinded to its own doing by the privileges it seems to enjoy, namely by the notion of being able to get away with literally 'murder'? The biggest risk is that these failures are never corrected? Unfortunately it amounts to even fate that mankind is burdened with such impossibility to alter the perpetuation of just bad governance. What allows a continuity of bad practice is while good people get hurt in the process and are shoved aside the elite seems to know always how to protect itself. That happens even philosophically by bending the truth to suit their survival. It was Heidegger who granted to any leader taking risks to become innovative the Right to make mistakes. He said that in his book 'Time and Being'. According to Gadamager once this book was published in 1929 it silenced immediately all other kinds of philosophical discourses. This included the phenomenology of E. Husserl. That silencing of other philosophies was one of the things which paved the road for Hitler to assume total power. Effectively the need for a leader was justified by negating the masses as if people would not be willing to take up the responsibility for how to govern themselves. And not only philosophers and thinkers, but all critical intellectuals and artists were effectively silenced by 1933.

All of this underlines the fact that any dialogue which cannot be controlled by power is deemed as posing immediate danger to such power. The European method of silencing dialogue differs from these past practices, but as a 'soft power' it is nevertheless just as effective to silence the critical, equally creative elements. It exposes the real meaning behind 'integration', namely what cannot be subsumed shall be sidelined and ignored. Lack of recognition is already an effective method to silence those who do not know how to protect themselves against such a system and its soft methods of acquiescence.

Conclusion

Citing all these examples will not correct what happened in the recent past i.e. since 2002. It is 'too late' would attest Frederique Chabaud and she meant the chances of a peace process in the Middle East. A lot of efforts have been undertaken to get it started again but a failure would expose more than anyone else Barack Obama. How to overcome then the certainty in failure so that everyone involved will trust more the uncertainty of the future by having come to a peace agreement based on acceptable terms for not merely Israelis and Palestinians, but all sides including the Arab and the international world.

Interestingly enough the peace agreement in the Middle East depends upon containing real estate development. It is a booming business for some while an existential threat for others. Israeli planners know perhaps more than anyone else where this contradiction can lead to. In effect it says something about business around the world relying heavily among other upon the construction and therefore real estate business to keep not merely the economy growing, but to stay ouf of the red zone made up of bad loans. How dire that can become in Europe has been shown first in Spain and Portugal, followed by the UK and then after spreading to other countries like Greece has hit really home in Ireland. The much praised Celtic Tiger has run out of steam and political governance means now brinkmanship insofar as the situation threatens to get worse by every bad news setting off a new spiral of anxious investors. Here the Greek deficit plays a special role in having exposed the weakness of the EU. The lack of any governance should not be attributed solely to the European Union gaining or not more competences but the economic theory developed by Milton Friedman has reduced governmental responsibilities to making sure the money flows and consumer confidence is maintained. Everything else has been rejected as being just messy politics with which no one wants to deal. Even most of the Israelis have in that sense become apolitical. The preference to get on with your own life has spread around the entire globe and globalization is just another word for such a world wide trend.

When faced by such a situation, it is still amazing to realise that the letter of Frederique Chabaud stands out like a bright star in an otherwise dark night. Alone the clarity of mind which comes across in those few lines which she devotes to an attempt to make sense of a situation like the Middle East convinces.

What has been tried in this response was not so much a case of refuting her but examinging where dialogue does have a chance to stay in touch. She is sceptical about the prospects and anyone reading her letter can agree with the reasons she gives as to why it is difficult, if not impossible to bring people on both sides to reason. What was attempted in this response is that philosophy based on poetic observations of life can and does reach out to others in order to show not merely an understanding but through criticism and reflection allows for a reconsideration of the very premises that dictate often the negation of substantial dialogues for the sake of fake debates. While the latter are organised in the interest of pretending something is being done in a political sense, people themselves are left out and thus do not enter the dialogue. Since the latter has to be the basis of any politics, its very absence explains also why many tend to drift of to an apolitical stance.

By involving the imagination, the dialogue does take up that challenge posed by Frederique, namely where do we begin to understand how things work. This challenge means as well rather than showing it merely at different levels of discourse, understanding has to be taken to a practical level and put into practice e.g. how we deal with others at work and especially when under stress.

Solutions are not only shown. They convince by working already as solutions. Out of them can be created new ideas. The German term 'Schöpfen' like fetching drinking water from a well gives this act of deducing ideas out of practice another meaning to the nowadays widely used term of 'creativity'. Those in control wish this to be done in an orderly fashion but implied is that this creative process should not question the position they occupy at the moment. Johannes Agnoli was always critical of this attempt to make things function because implied is not creativity but a functionalization of intelligence to make it work for the system. Once that border is hit, then no more creativity is allowed as the categories come down to limit any further process or interaction. What Frederique Chabaud failed to include in her letter is precisely this questioning of the truth very often linked to the drawing of borders in order to indicate up to here understanding may go but not further. That would lead to a rationalization of understanding to understand the fears of the settlers to loose their homes even though they have been built illegally. Their demand not only to stay but to expand repeats the mistake of the nineteenth century as described by Hegel who saw clearly bourgeoisie society can only exist by expanding and therefore by crossing or even trespassing borders. In reference to Kafka that entails as well crossing borders after which no one can follow them nor understand their actions any longer. A humane self-understanding is thus more than just a norm or an elusive term; rather it is a measure of things in a humane sense.

The response wishes to address at the same time the imaginary witness. It is a follow-up to what Adorno expressed as a necessity if the truth cannot be passed on in a simple way. Naturally he too risks to justify thereby mendacity. This is why Martin Jay was mentioned and why it is so important to be critical of public diplomacy as another form of public lie. Above all it should not be forgotten that the imaginary witness is a concept which Adorno links to learning out of mistakes. As precondition for telling true stories is says not in an imperative but aesthetical way when telling stories no one should suppress or beautify the mistakes made in the past. Gpünter Grass was appalled, for instance, by writers amongst the '48 group inventing for their novels anti Fascist heros when in reality there had been none. At the same time he too suppressed his involvement as a young man in the SS and thus avoided for 60 years to re-tell his own story as it is. The value of a true story is that it gives everyone for the future the chance to correct the mistakes or else not to repeat them. Consequently it is of great significance what Frederique Chabaud would caution not in the letter but in her work and attitudes she conveyed alongside, namely not to make mistakes with children whereas she was of the opinion that it is possible with adults as they can learn to correct them.

When telling true stories, there is a chance that the human voice becomes audible as in Bach's fugue. When hearing the voice of Frederique Chabaud, then it is like realizing how few a times one is touched by such a voice in the course of one's life. This is to say too often language is used like a mask. Rarely do people reveal their true motives nor do they say honestly their opinion. They mask themselves especially when speaking with someone higher up in the hierarchy and therefore has greater authority. Ernst Bloch went so far as calling this the 'slave language' in which everything is perverted. When praising the work of the boss, it is really meant to be a curse and vice versa a curse means in reality praise. As long the slave language dominates, it means no human voice can be heard. Instead voices are hard, the sounds of them distorting and even disturbing the present. These hardened voices do not convey a sense for the flow of humanity.

This response wishes therefore to attest that this voice has been heard when listening to how Frederique Chabaud speaks. Her voice can open up people and motivate them to search for their and that of others' authentic voice. It can and does bring them together. About stories and their importance, here the writer George Crane would say stories are what makes us become human. Furthermore, to tell the same story in other cultural contexts as has been the case with that Menuhin project realised during the year designated to ‘intercultural dialogue’, that may further dialogue between people of different cultural backgrounds. For the human voice can transcend all kinds of borders once everyone is prepared to listen carefully what else the story entails.

Naturally there is always the possibility of working quietly behind the scenes and then let the solutions developed over time surprise everyone in the end. That would be a kind of magical solution and has often been the case when art works not recognized for a long time enter suddenly public consciousness and never leave again. The paintings of Vincent Van Gogh is such a case.

By all accounts to practice dialogue in this subversive sense is an attempt to stay differentiated and more so ready to listen to others. Based on experience, friendship and independence dialogue can come as well in the form of good advise. This may not be as of yet the solution but it can alleviate the situation and help avoiding making further mistakes. In that direction should be taken that personal letter of Frederique Chabaud. For what she says contains invaluable advise at a crucial time when the peace process in the Middle East is facing the critical test of compromise for the sake of peace. If this precondition is not fulfilled, then the peace process will be without a realistic chance to tap into the many dialogues which had started this renewal of even hope.

As to where Frederique Chabaud stands herself in 2010, it may be gauged from a power point presentation she made to show how the European Union works. It was such a neutral presentation that all those critical traces articulated in the past had all but been erased. (See reference 2) The question is 'why'?

In attempting a response to such a formidable letter eight years later, it was mentioned what Adorno and Horkheimer feared the most in 1944, namely that the xenophobic forces shall not go away even after Fascism has been defeated. Thus the failure of 'intercultural dialogue' applies not merely to the prevention or not of war, but whether or not it can help to avoid a replication within the European Union of something similar to the failures of the Enlightenment. Once driven by xenophobic forces people shall not come to terms with reason. The question is what then when the European Union is not listening with real voices having vanished during these past eight years?

There is a need for a better understanding of many negative developments now dominating the news. This includes the threat by a preacher to burn the Koran on 11th of September 2010 or Sarrazin claiming Germany is lost due to the immigrants, specifically the Muslim minority. That is no longer just 'fear mongering' but a deliberate attempt to end any dialogue.

Frederique Chabaud wanted to show in her letter how illusionary it is to think people could be reached by generosity, including a showing of understanding their fears, and then still stay in contact with them through dialogue aiming to bring them to terms with reason. Frederique Chabaud pointed out emphatically that this will not work.

Indeed their silence is not only proof, but has become the 'iron curtain' of today. As such it has taken on a quality of its own. Another way of describing this phenomenon would be to think of minds being locked into a set pattern which do not allow any other viewpoint to upset their understanding of how the world works. Cynicism does breed upon cynicism.

This response is written as well in strong agreement with her that any attempt to rephrase some of the things said prior to a break-up of dialogue will not work. What happened in the past happened. An appeal to human compassion will not work if redemption is impossible due to no true stories being told. Coming to terms with reason is a challenge but as Michel Foucault showed on hand of the history of insanity, silence has as much to do with institutional practices as with a sharp delineation of reason as if anything else is sick i.e. insane. This has made the real dialogue with the other impossible. Due this nineteenth century thinking used to create the nation state prevails still today, there is a risk that any challenge of debates organised under the pretext to be the political reasoning of the day are going to be answered by another, even more profound method to silence these critics. Still it is important to work through that 'ontology of silence'. It may mean like the children know from their story about 'Schlaraffenland' (a kind of paradise where food is in abundance) to reach such utopia they will have to eat their way through a sugar mountain for seven days and nights before being able to reach the other side. The risk is by eating all that sugar they will get so sick that they will not be able to continue. Yet silence can be countered by making it appear at least less absolute. One assurance can be given along the way, namely silence needs language to be heard and thus the right to remain silent has to recognize the right to speak ( Bart Verschaffel).

For further reflections it is worthwhile to repeat one crucial point Frederique Chabaud made in that letter of 2002, namely that "the repeated necessity of 'dialogue' is a 'fuite en avant'." The reason for that is almost self-evident to her: "not able oneself to understand how the world works, we enter a dialogue." Then she adds something most crucial which upholds dialogue, but under a very clear condition: "But it is not enough to speak, write to one another, eventually work together; there is the absolute necessity to accept to unsettle oneself by experiencing beyond one's own self-understood reality, to work in mind and heart to apprehend the reality of the other." That definition of work gives her the freedom to describe the situation as it is: "Now the dialogue is often speaking to one another: Babel was born at the beginning of this century and explodes already. There is the perverse use of this word that is just about to kill it - from within so to say. Now the Commission imposes some sorts of new 'trilogies'... even better, more balanced because of the intrusion of the 'third' element?"

Adorno would have been happy to read such lines as he advises in 'Minima Moralia' every intellectual or writer should throw himself out when he begins to settle into some order which is comfortable to him. Truth is never comfortable. Furthermore he recommended to write-down everything what one does not understand. This method of writing as exposing oneself to what one does not understood can bring about a new self-understanding. If it takes on the form of a dialogue not with God as Kierkegaard proposed, but with the other(s), such a philosophical dialogue does reach out to others and helps to stay in touch with reality. However, no quick results should be expected for a true dialogue requires both time and patience.

The only strange thing about that letter is how she ends it. Frederique Chabaud names understanding of what works the first 'weapon' in need of if one wishes to take up such a dialogue. This conclusion is more than just a puzzle. After all the silence it could have been expected that a dialogue is linked to the need to find and to pick up that human language. Communication thereof could then be realized without the need to resort to any weapon. For human understanding is possible without words, but language an indication that over time human beings have found a mutual understanding and this in trust of each other that they mean the same when they say such important words as love, freedom, equality. They are as many values as aspirations to create a base for human language, silence as the economy of words included. Therefore silence should not be played out against language but enrich it.

Leaving the reference to understanding as first weapon aside, surely she meant to say not everything is hopeless. Only to be without self-protection, that she consideres not to be wise. For once open and able to open up other(s), what might come out at first is not so much understanding but an onslaught of the other. This is the case when feeling free to express everything which was pent in up till now. Here understanding rage can make a difference insofar this first outburst should be taken as the person not able to come to terms with what life is all about, namely often 'much ado about nothing' (Shakespeare) or as the saying goes 'a mere storm in the tea glass'. Of course, rage can be more serious than that as shown by both Enzensberger and Sloterdijk.

Something needs to be heeded when faced by rage. Rage in the absence of reason can take on the form of revenge. It is an attempt to regain the balance thought to have been lost e.g. no self pride due to the criticism of others. As it is usually connected to feeling insulted e.g. the Danish cartoon about Allah. Once Muslims believing in Allah feel insulted in how someone else depicts their deity, they do not wish to admit that their way of worship can also be made into an object of even ridicule. Equally they do not realize that by burning down the Danish embassy and going on a rampage does not correct anything but is in Western eyes another way of demonstrating 'irrationality'. It gives even further reason to fear the Muslim world. The spiral of misunderstanding can then continue unchecked. What makes the entire process so dangerous is that what the cartoon has touched upon is but the tip of the iceberg. There are deeper feelings ready to explode at any given opportunity. People feel generally speaking very insecure and therefore they are inclined to make a resolute stand where it seems not to matter but which is a triviality easily to be blown up into an issue of concern for the entire world. Again the mechanisms described when discussing the media come to the fore. It is an indication of a loss of imagination at a much earlier stage with devotion to religion and its denial of certain pictures a reminder how this dispute played out already in the 5th century between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church.

Dialogue is a serious investment in something on which the entire life is based and therefore has to heed what Kundera recently emphasized, namely the ability to be as well not serious. He means it not to become arrogant by taking oneself so serious that there is nothing to laugh about. But once fear dominates to be exposed as being like the emperor without clothes, then the believers would fear to risk to loose their faith not only in their deity but in their own abilities to hide these fears. Thus believers make everything contingent on their abilities to judge not only their devotion to Allah or God, but equally to an entire ability to order their lives in society and this according to a definite value system. They need some reliance and enter therefore too easily an irrational reason that they need a belief and not reason to establish such an order of things. Thus rage is a way to keep out any questioning of such a belief, the lashing out but a way to declare in an absolute way the wish not to be confronted by any other truth. This kind of clinging on to the need of a belief prevents them from coming to terms with reason. They do not let understanding touch them because it would be a most painful reminder what kind of understanding they have given up since childhood and converting themselves for the sake of belonging to such a belief system. Naipaul in his book 'Beyond belief' shows how effective this logic of conversion works for to proof they have always been believers they are forced to go back in their personal histories and begin to reconstruct even the figures of the past e.g grandfather was already a Muslim when in fact he was not. The tight lipped way of speaking about everything indicates that silence has become a most repressive force affecting everyone.

Especially if pride is based on such a belief, then the questioning thereof will be fended off. That means not wishing to reflect upon what constitutes the 'self'. It may well be an illusionary self thinking if this is done and that achieved, then one can be proud of oneself. If that is suddenly questioned, then the exposure to the risk of loosing all illusions may be too terrible to bear. Restoring pride as way to regain a balance leaves out the critical question if the means will really restore it. Rage acted out has much more an irrational continuity and will take the person even further from the original identity since now much more fragmented than ever before. And this without taking into consideration that the original identity filled with pride may well be linked to such an illusionary self. That is always the case if assumed to be above criticism because perfect or so great.

These reactions of rage and revenge come without thinking about justice and a just society. They are not one and the same thing and like the means and ends have to be brought into correspondence with each other. Of interest is here Enzensberger's thesis about the 'radical looser'. [11] Sloterdijk's thesis about 'Zorn' touches as well upon the phenomenon of rage but describes it out of a theological perspective to suggest this may well be about ancient feelings being suddenly unlocked. [12]

In modern society with people trimmed to seek success within the system, there seems nothing which can prevent them from getting hurt at the 'cutting edge' of success and failure. Sharp blades remind of Brecht's 'Mack the knife'. A song by the sailors about 'KARLE' lets the knife play the key role till he is caught and hung. Unfortunately Enzensberger's 'radical looser' comes nowadays much closer to the suicide bomber as if his or her life has lost any value. Often the loss can transform a seeming friendly neighbour suddenly into someone capable of killing his wife and children. All in the neighbourhood are stunned. Till then he seemed to be such a nice man.

Often when fury is unloaded in this way, it is really a matter of stumbling over something trivial in life. The agony is not to comprehend the huge discrepancy between something portrayed as absolute and so great and one's own lack of self esteem or insignificant value in society. It says a lot about personal despair when life seems worthless and so trivial. Precisely because people need motivation and a reason to step out of this self isolation in order to come into contact with the real world of the others, the looser has to swing himself up to a level of greatness before undertaking anything. The wish to do something great but out of despair drives then many into the trap of thinking only by killing or taking a life they can compensate that loss of value, pride, greatness or whatever they think and believe to have lost. Jürgen Habermas calls it the ‘mental core of Fascism’ which can lead to an unloading of so much hatred that revenge is perceived as justified mean to instigate terrorist violence against specific other people. The 'scape goats' are picked especially if they dare to contradict the wish for massive conformity by just being different. All this rage is nothing but a confession of not having really lived.

Michael D. Higgins pointed out each culture has a special way to deal with death but that question has not been really answered in a satisfactory way by any culture. Often that vague way of defining the non-definable has created counter positions to life itself. Erich Fromm spoke about an underlying necrophilia tendency in Fascism: the love of the dead ones. It resonates with a saying by Hegel that the only force unmoved by all human efforts to move things is death itself. To be unmoved means as well to no longer care. It is as if having died before one's time not alone but in a society made of many persons who are indifferent to each other. That frightens persons as they feel alone and unprotected against such indifference. It is equated with life having become completely arbitrary. To regain a value for oneself a change is not enough. Rather the wish to transform oneself into something completely 'other' explains why sudden projections of desire upon objects like a sea shell abound. The wish for transformation grows proportionally to the person feeling as if not making any difference at all in society which does not care. Again dialogue can alleviate the person caught up in such a situation by upholding the notion that he or she does make a difference despite everything else. For that to happen, a dialogue which affirms life in order to uphold life needs an imaginative empathy but also after reading this letter of Frederique Chabaud still something else.

Since fury can be also an admittance of helplessness since no dialogue is possible without the recognition of the other that oneself is a human being, acceptance of that fact alone can make a difference in the final outcome. With that goes an acceptance of one's vulnerabilities. There is no better protection then perceiving human weakness in reality as a great strength. Looking then into the eye of the other being furious reminds of what Andre Maurois advised when giving his lectures about 'illusion'. [13] He recommend by analogy that a woman should be loved like a sailor who during the storm lets down the sails to ride it out and in so doing never forgets to love the sea.

Hatto Fischer Athens 5.9.2010

[1] For the full letter see http://poieinkaiprattein.org/international/middle-east/the-failure-of-intercultural-dialogue---letter-by-frederique-chabaud-2002/)

[2] See the articles written especially in 2002 as posted on following website: http://poieinkaiprattein.org/international/middle-east/

[3] For further information about the Menuhin project called “Share the world” see http://www.interculturaldialogue2008.eu/571.0.html?&L=0

[4] For further reference see http://poieinkaiprattein.org/europe/intercultural-dialogue---eu-decision/ See also the report about the First Meeting to constitute the Platform http://www.intercultural-europe.org/docs/report-first-meeting.pdf

[5] http://poieinkaiprattein.org/europe/intercultural-dialogue---eu-decision/priority-1-intercultural-dialogue/framing-conversations-intercultural-dialogue-as-a-democratic-process-by-f-matarasso/

[6] http://productivityofculture.org/symposium/network-of-networks/projects-and-impact-of-culture-in-central-europe-by-max-aufischer/

[7] Presumably Frederique Chabaud attended on behalf of the Menuhin Foundation the first meeting to constitute the platform, for a report of that First Meeting see http://www.intercultural-europe.org/docs/report-first-meeting.pdf

[8] Juergen Habermas (2008) “Zur Vernunft der Oeffentlichkeit: Pathologien der politischen Kommunikation” in: Ach, Europa. Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp. 179 - 188

[9] Yehudi Menuhin quoted in ‘Lets Share the news’, Issue 5, April 2010 at http://www.menuhin-foundation.com/index2.php?option=com_yanc&act=archive&task=view&cid=90&Itemid=95&no_html=1

[10] Juergen Habermas (2008) “Zur Vernunft der Oeffentlichkeit” in: Ach, Europa. Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp. 131 - 191

[11] Hans Magnus Enzensberger (2006). Schreckens Maenner, Versuch ueber den radikalen Verlierer. Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp

[12] Peter Sloterdijk (2006). Zorn und Zeit. Frankfurt a. Main: Suhrkamp.

[13] Andre Maurois (1969) Les Illusions. Avant-Propos. Jean Mistler. Paris : Hachette.

Reference:

1. For the programme of that conference and the participation of Frederique Chabaud held in Paris in March 2008 with her participating in one of the panels on cultural see http://www.histoire-immigration.fr/upload/file/ext_media_fichier_397_Colloque_AEDI_EN.pdf)

PowerPoint Presentation
Frédérique Chabaud. La NACRe – Ingénierie de projets culturels. 16. Advocacy for culture. ∎ Cultural networks and action with the first ...
www.la-nacre.org/fileadmin/.../European_Union_Culture_.pdf

^ Top

« White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue: "Living together as equals in dignity" (2010) | Dragan Klaic: Seeking to make sense of Intercultural Dialogue year 2008 »

Ποιειν Και Πραττειν - create and do

Navigation